Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
,
petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR,
THE UIC TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING PERSONNEL
AND EMPLOYEES UNION, LELIAN CONCON, MARY ANN
DE RAMOS, JOVITA MAMBURAM, ANGELINA ABADILLA,
MELANIE DE LA ROSA, ZENAIDA CANOY, ALMA
VILLACARLOS, JOSIE BOSTON, PAULINA PALMA GIL,
GEMMA GALOPE, LEAH CRUZA, DELFA DIAPUEZ,
respondent.
G.R. 151379 | J. Azcuna | Jan. 14, 2005
FACTS:
This case stemmed from the collective
bargaining negotiations between petitioner
University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc.
(UNIVERSITY) and respondent The UIC Teaching
and Non-Teaching Personnel and Employees
Union (UNION). The UNION, as the certified
bargaining agent of all rank and file employees
of the UNIVERSITY, submitted its collective
bargaining proposals to the latter on February
16, 1994. However, one item was left
unresolved and this was the inclusion or
exclusion of some positions (secretaries,
registrars, accounting personnel, guidance
counselors) in the scope of the bargaining unit.
The UNION it filed a notice of strike on the
grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor
practice. During the thirty (30) day cooling-off
period, two union members were dismissed by
petitioner. Consequently, the UNION went on
strike.
On January 23, 1995, the then Secretary of
Labor, Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, issued an Order
assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
On March 10, 1995, the UNION filed another
notice of strike, this time citing as a reason the
UNIVERSITYs termination of the individual
respondents. The UNION alleged that the
UNIVERSITYs act of terminating the individual
respondents is in violation of the Order of the
Secretary of Labor.
On March 28, 1995, the Secretary of Labor
issued another Order reiterating the directives
contained in the January 23, 1995 Order. Hence,
the UNIVERSITY was directed to reinstate the
individual respondents under the same terms
and conditions prevailing prior to the labor
dispute.
The UNIVERSITY filed a MR. In the Order dated
August 18, 1995, then Acting Secretary Jose S.
Brilliantes denied the MR, but modified the two
previous Orders by adding:
o
Anent the Unions Motion, we find that
superseding circumstances would not
warrant the physical reinstatement of
the twelve (12) terminated employees.
Hence, they are hereby ordered placed
under payroll reinstatement until the
validity of their termination is finally
resolved.
ISSUE:
1. WON the Sec. of Labor may take cognizance of an
issue involving employees who are not part of the
bargaining unit.
2. WON payroll reinstatement, instead of actual
reinstatement, is proper
HELD:
1.
HELD: No.
Arguments
RATIO:
A careful reading of RA8042 would show that there is no
specific provision which provides for jurisdiction over
disputes or unresolved grievances regarding the
interpretation or implementation of a CBA. Section 10
simply speaks, in general, of claims arising out of an
employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law
or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages.
REYES vs.TRAJANO
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 (TUEUOLALIA), 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.
Samahan ng Manggagawa
Samahan, through its authorized
representative, Alfie F. Alipio, filed an application for
registration 5 of its name "Samahan ng Mga
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" with the
DOLE.
issued the corresponding certificate of registration6
respondent Hanjin Heavy Industries and
Construction Co., Ltd. Philippines
filed a petition7 with DOLE-Pampanga praying for the
cancellation of registration of Samahan' s association on
the ground that its members did not
fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in the
second sentence of Article 243 (now 249).
Hanjin opined that only ambulant, intermittent,
itinerant, rural workers, self-employed, and those
without definite employers may form a workers'
association. It further posited that one third (1/3) of the
members of the association had definite employers and
the continued existence and
registration of the association would prejudice the
company's goodwill.
Supplemental motion: that Samahan committed a
misrepresentation in connection with the list of members
and/or voters who took part in the
ratification of their constitution and by-laws in its
application for registration. Hanjin claimed that
Samahan made it appear that its members
were all qualified
DOLE RD: DOLE Regional Director Ernesto Bihis ruled in
favor of Hanjin.
same claim was made by Samahan in its motion to
dismiss, but it failed to adduce evidence that the
remaining 63 members were also
employees of Hanjin.
Misrepresentation: that all of its members were
employees of the former. Having a definite employer,
these 57 members should have formed a labor union for
collective bargaining.
CA
the CA rendered its decision, holding that the
ISSUE
THE COURT OF APPEALS SEfilOUSLY ERRED IN
FINDING THAT SAMAHAN CANNOT FORM A
WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES IN HANJIN
AND INSTEAD SHOULD HA VE FORMED A UNION,
HENCE THEIR REGISTRATION AS A WORKERS'
ASSOCIATION SHOULD BE CANCELLED.
Samahan argues that the right to form a workers'
association is not exclusive to intermittent, ambulant
and itinerant workers. While the Labor
Code allows the workers "to form, join or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing" for the purpose of
collective bargaining, it does not prohibit
them from forming a labor organization simply for
purposes of mutual aid and protection.
Hanjin counters that Samahan failed to adduce sufficient
basis that all its members were employees of Hanjin or
its legitimate contractors,
Samahan reiterates its stand that workers with a definite
employer can organize any association for purposes of
mutual aid and protection. Inherent
in the workers' right to self-organization is its right to
name its own organization.
HELD:
Right to self-organization includes
right to form a union, workers '
association and labor management
councils
the right to self-organization connotes unionism.
Workers, however, can also form and join a workers'
association as well as labor-management councils
(LMC).
As Article 246 (now 252) of the Labor Code provides,
the right to self-organization includes the right to form,
join or assist labor organizations
fer the purpose of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for
the same purpose
for their mutual aid and protection. This is in line with
the policy of the State
to foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong
and united labor
movement as well as to make sure that workers
participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights, duties
and welfare.42
The right to form a union or association or to selforganization
comprehends two notions, to wit: (a) the liberty or
freedom, that is, the
absence of restraint which guarantees that the employee
may act for himself
without being prevented by law; and (b) the power, by
virtue of which an
employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining
an association. 43