REYES vs.
TRAJANO The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily
FACTS: Public Respondent Trajano as OIC of the Bureau of Labor
Relations sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to
vote of one hundred forty-one members of the “Iglesia ni Kristo”
(INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election
at which two labor organizations were contesting the right to be the
exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the
Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union
Industries Corporation. The competing unions were Tri-Union
Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries
and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines
and Allied Services (TUPAS).
The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
TUPAS 1, TUEU-OLALIA 95, NO UNION 1, SPOILED 1, CHALLENGED
141
The challenged votes were those cast by the 141 INK members.
They were segregated and excluded from the final count in virtue of
an agreement between the competing unions, reached at the pre-
election conference, that the INK members should not be allowed to
vote “because they are not members of any union and refused to
participate in the previous certification elections.”
The INK employees promptly filed a petition to cancel the election
alleging that it “was not fair” and the result thereof did “not reflect
the true sentiments of the majority of the employees.” TUEU-
OLALIA opposed the petition contending that the petitioners “do
not have legal personality to protest the results of the election,”
because “they are not members of either contending unit, but . . . of
the INK” which prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from
joining or forming any labor organization . . . .”
ISSUE: W/N employees who are not part of any union may validly
exercise their right to vote in a certification election
HELD: YES. Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the “right to
self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of
their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.” This is
made plain by no less than three provisions of the Labor Code of the
Philippines.
The right of self-organization includes the right to organize or
affiliate with a labor union or determine which of two or more
unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in concerted
activities with co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining
through representatives of their own choosing, or for their mutual
aid and protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or enhancement
of their rights and interests.
employees, providing for a term of three years retroactive to April 1,
includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising said
right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the
exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be
compelled to exercise such a conferred right. The fact that a
person has opted to acquire membership in a labor union does
not preclude his subsequently opting to renounce such
membership.
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.
The respondents’ argument that the petitioners are disqualified to
vote because they “are not constituted into a duly organized labor
union” — “but members of the INK which prohibits its followers, on
religious grounds, from joining or forming any labor organization”
— and “hence, not one of the unions which vied for certification as
sole and exclusive bargaining representative,” is specious. Neither
law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only
employees affiliated with any labor organization may take part
in a certification election. On the contrary, the plainly
discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to
all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether they
are members of a labor organization or not.
Neither does the contention that petitioners should be denied the
right to vote because they “did not participate in previous
certification elections in the company for the reason that their
religious beliefs do not allow them to form, join or assist labor
organizations,” persuade acceptance. No law, administrative rule or
precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of
neglect to exercise the right in past certification elections.
Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs DOLE GR 94045
Facts:
On August 15, 1987, CENECO entered into a collective bargaining
agreement with CURE, a labor union representing its rank-and-file
1987 and extending up to March 31, 1990. On December 28, 1989,
CURE wrote CENECO proposing that negotiations be conducted for
a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
On January 18, 1990, CENECO denied CURE’s request on the ground
that, under applicable decisions of the Supreme Court, employees
who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are
not entitled to form or join a union.
Prior to the submission of the proposal for CBA renegotiation, CURE
members, in a general assembly held on December 9, 1989,
approved Resolution No. 35 whereby it was agreed that ‘tall union
members shall withdraw, retract, or recall the union members’
membership from Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. in order
to avail (of) the full benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining
Agreement entered into by and between CENECO and CURE, and the
supposed benefits that our union may avail of under the renewed
CBA.
However, the withdrawal from membership was denied by CENECO
on February 27, 1990 under Resolution No. 90.
Issue: WON the employees of CENECO who withdrew their
membership from the cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE
for purposes of the negotiations for a collective bargaining
agreement proposed by the latter.
Held:
The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling
reason why their withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed.
As pointed out by CURE, the resignation of the member- employees
is an expression of their preference for union membership over that
of membership in the cooperative. The avowed policy of the State to
afford fall protection to labor and to promote the primacy of free
collective bargaining mandates that the employees’ right to form
and join unions for purposes of collective bargaining be accorded
the highest consideration.
Thus, member employees of a cooperative may withdraw as
members of the cooperative in order to join labor union.
Membership in a cooperative is voluntary; inherent in it is the right
not to join.
NOTES: (San Jose Electric Service Cooperative vs. Ministry of Labor)
1. A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an
ordinary business concern being run either, by persons,
partnerships or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the
ones who run and operate the business while the others are its
employees.
2. An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member
and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective
bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his
co-owners. Employees of cooperatives who are themselves
members of the cooperative have no right to form or join labor
organizations for purposes of collective bargaining for being
themselves co-owners of the cooperative.
3. However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees
who are not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such
employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to
organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as are
enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE),
petitioner, vs. HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING G.R. No.
128845, June 1, 2000
FACTS:
Private respondent International School, Inc. (School), pursuant to
PD 732, is a domestic educational institution established primarily
for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other
temporary residents. The decree authorizes the School to employ its
own teaching and management personnel selected by it either
locally or abroad, from Philippine or other nationalities, such
personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and
regulations attending their employment, except laws that have been
or will be enacted for the protection of employees. School hires both
foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the
same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.
The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-
hires. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate 25% more than local-
hires.
When negotiations for a new CBA were held on June 1995,
petitioner ISAE, a legitimate labor union and the collective
bargaining representative of all faculty members of the School,
contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-
hires. This issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-hires
should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually
caused a deadlock between the parties.
ISAE filed a notice of strike. Due to the failure to reach a
compromise in the NCMB, the matter reached the DOLE which
favored the School. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the foreign-hires should be included in bargaining unit of
local- hires.
RULING:
NO. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3, specifically provides
that labor is entitled to “humane conditions of work.” These
conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace – the factory,
the office or the field – but include as well the manner by which
employers treat their employees.
Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by
the Labor Code. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor practice for
an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.
The Constitution enjoins the State to “protect the rights of workers
and promote their welfare, In Section 18, Article II of the
constitution mandates “to afford labor full protection”. The State has
the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and
capital. These relations are not merely contractual but are so
impressed with public interest that labor contracts, collective
bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good.
However, foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as
the local-hires.
A bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer,
comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees,
consistent with equity to the employer indicate to be the best suited to
serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.
The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining
unit are (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity
and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity
of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working
conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective
bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status. The
basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether
or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to
all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
In the case at bar, it does not appear that foreign-hires have
indicated their intention to be grouped together with local-hires for
purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining history
in the School also shows that these groups were always treated
separately. Foreign-hires have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy
security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions
under the same working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires
are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires such as
housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel
allowances. These benefits are reasonably related to their status as
foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter.
To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would
not assure either group the exercise of their respective collective
bargaining rights.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is
hereby GRANTED IN PART.
NATU v Republic
G. R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner NATU filed a petition for certification election to
determine the exclusive bargaining agent of its supervisory
employees. The bank (Private respondent) moved to dismiss the
petition alleging that the supervisory employees are actually
managerial employees hence prohibited from joining unions. The
Med Arbiter granted the petition but the decision was modified by
the Sec. of Labor on the ground that the ff employees are deemed as
managerial and/or confidential employees and are therefore
ineligible to join or form labor unions (Dept. Managers, Asst.
Managers, branch Cashiers and Controllers).
ISSUE : W/N the Department Managers, Assistant Managers,
Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent
Bank are managerial and/or confidential employees hence ineligible
to join or assist the union of petitioner.
RULING:
The subject employees are supervisory and not managerial. As
provided under 212 of the Philippine Labor Code, a Managerial
employee is;
a) One vested with power to lay down and execute management
policies, or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge,
assign or discipline employees, and
b) One vested with both the power or prerogative.
Like Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers, Department
Managers do not possess the power to lay down policies nor to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees. They occupy supervisory positions, charged with the
duty among others to "recommend proposals to improve and
streamline operations.
On one hand, a confidential employee is one entrusted with
confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or
care and protection of the employer's property.
Therefore only the Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers
of respondent bank who are deemed as confidential employees are
ineligible to join or assist petitioner NATU-Republic Planters Bank
Supervisors Chapter, or join, assist or form any other labor
organization
Doctrine of Necessary Implication
The disqualification of managerial employees from joining a union
is due to the evident conflict of interest as they are supposed to be
on the side of the management. As to confidential employees, their
disqualification is due to the undue advantage they possess.
Branch managers/Cashiers/Controllers are all considered
confidential employees and hence disqualified from joining a labor
organization. Do note that this is not applicable to all banks in
general.