Petitioner instituted this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to overturn the decision of the respondent director which ordered the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file workers of the private respondent GAW Trading, Inc. ALU informed GAW Trading that majority of the latter’s employee have authorized ALU to be their sole and exclusive bargaining unit. It was opposed by the SPFL and NAMGAW which undertook an illegal strile. ALU and GAW Trading executed CBA. On June 11,1986 The med-arbiter held a certification of election, which ALU filed an MR/Appeal. Director Trajano ruled in favor of ALU but it was overturned by the public respondent. Whether the CBA entered into between petitioner and GAW Trading was defective A. Kick Loy vs. National Labor Relations Commission
the mechanics of collective bargaining are set in
motion only when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (1) possession of the status of majority representation by the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of selection and/or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251, paragraph (a), of the New Labor Code. Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU) informed private respondent GAW Trading, Inc. that a majority of the latter's employees had authorized it to be their sole and exclusive bargaining representative. Petitioner thereafter requested that private respondent conduct a conference with it for the execution of an initial CBA. On the ff day, ALU's Chairman furnished GAW Trading 10 final copies of the CBA for Comment, or otherwise, for signing. Two days later, ALU (in behalf of majority of the employees of GAW Trading, Inc.) signed and executed the collective bargaining agreement. In the meantime, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) together with nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) undertook a strike after it failed to get the management of GAW Trading, Inc. to sit for a conference respecting its demands. Specifically, SPFL wanted GAW Trading, Inc. to make a turn-about of its standing recognition of ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. GAW Trading filed a petition for a Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin SPFL from continuing with the strike. Acting on the petition, the Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal. Later, the Med-Arbiter issued an order declaring that a certification election be held for all branches of GAW Trading, Inc. Aggrieved by the decision, ALU filed an appeal, which the Bureau of Labor Relations Director granted. However, the decision was reversed by respondent Director, on the ground that the CBA between petitioner and GAW Trading was defective. Petitioner thus filed SCA-C, asserting that the Med-Arbiter committed GAD in issuing the order declaring that a certification election be held for all branches of GAW Trading, Inc. It asseverated that the CBA between it and GAW Trading was not defective Yes. The CBA is defective. petitioner's status as an exclusive bargaining representative was found to be dubious. Respondent GAW Trading sent a letter to the petitioner, merely indicating that it was not against the desire of its workers and required petitioner to present proof that it was supported by the majority in a meeting to be held on a specified date. Yet petitioner did not positively establish that the employees expressly recognized it as their exclusive bargaining representative. Clearly, respondent GAW Trading acted with undue haste in recognizing petitioner as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees, for it merely relied on the latter's self-serving claim that it was indeed recognized as such by said employees. Hence, there is no clear compliance with the jurisdictional preconditions for collective bargaining. Second, there was a failure to post the CBA in at least two conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5 days before its ratification. Petitioner ratiocinated that the illegal strike staged by SPFL made it impossible to comply with the posting requirement, for it resulted in the absence of impartial members of the bargaining unit who could be apprised of the CBA's contents. The SC found petitioner's justification puerile and unacceptable. In the first place, the posting of copies of the CBA is the responsibility of the employer, and not the petitioner. Secondly, the formulation and finalization of the CBA was suspect, for there appeared to be undue haste in the conduct thereof. Hence, that an illegal strike was conducted by the SPFL is of no moment. Third, the public respondent director found that 181 of the 281 workers who supposedly ratified the CBA had soon manifested their strong and vehement denial and/or repudiation of the alleged negotiation and ratification of the CBA. This indicates that the CBA would be detrimental to industrial stability. I concur with the decision of the Supreme Court. It must be noted that in interpreting the protection to labor and social justice provisions of the labor laws on rules and regulations implementing the mandates of the law, the Supreme Court has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights. G.R. No. 85085 November 6, 1989 Eleven days before the expiration of the CBA between petitioner ALU and the Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR), private respondent National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Office in Tacloban city. Petitioner sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support of its petition. Is the contract bar rule applicable where a collective bargaining agreement was hastily concluded in defiance of the order of the med- arbiter enjoining the parties from entering into a CBA until the issue on representation is finally resolved? Article 256 of the Labor Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 111, provides: ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. — In organized establishments, when a petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med- Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the choices receiving the two highest number of votes. Petitioner had a collective bargaining agreement with PASAR which expired on April 1, 1987. on March 23, 1987, private respondent filed a petition for certification election. Petitioner moved to intervene and sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support of its petition. Med-Arbiter Elorcha dismissed the petition. However, the order of dismissal was set aside and enjoined PASAR from entering into a collective bargaining agreement with any union until after the issue of representation is finally resolved. Private respondent appealed the order of dismissal. While the appeal was pending, petitioner ALU concluded negotiations with PASAR on the proposed CBA. Thereafter, petitioner ALU moved for the dismissal of the appeal alleging that it had just concluded a CBA with PASAR In a resolution dated September 30, 1987, the public respondent gave due course to the appeal by ordering the conduct of a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of PASAR with ALU, NAFLU and no union as choices, and denied petitioner 's motion to dismiss Both parties moved for reconsideration of the said resolution. However, both motions were denied by public respondent in the order dated April 22, 1988 No, reasoning in cases organized establishments where there exist a certified bargaining agent, what is essential is whether the petition for certification election was filed within 60 day freedom period. When an election which provides for three or more choices result in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes casts, a run- off election shall be conducted between the choices receiving the two highest number of votes. Art.256 is clear. The mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the responded to order the holding of a certification election. I concur with the decision of the Supreme Court. The last 60 days in a collective bargaining agreement is referred to as the freedom period. Even though the parties have already agreed upon a CBA despite the courts order for the PASAR to not enter a CBA with any union, the order of the labor to hold a certification election is proper so that fraud can be avoided. G.R. No. 84685 February 23, 1990 This is a special civil action of certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to annul the orders of the Med- Arbiter and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), for the holding of a certification election in the Calasiao Beer Region of the San Miguel Corporation. Did Director of the Bureau of Labor Relation gravely abuse her discretion in ordering the holding of a certification election ART 258 of the Labor Code “When an employer may file petition. - When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election. All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the secretary of Labor." On September 7, 1987, petitioner requested San Miguel Corporation for voluntary recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the covered employees which consist of the monthly- and daily-paid employees of the Calasiao Sales Office. SMC denied the union's request On November 27, 1987. SMC, filed a petition for certification election among the sales personnel of the Region only, excluding the daily-paid and monthly-paid employees, but including the sales offices of the entire beer region. The Union filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the petition for certification election was premature as it did not ask SMC to bargain collectively with it. February 22, 1988, the Med-Arbiter issued a decision ordering a certification election be conducted among the sales force personnel of the SMC. The petition has no merit. in an unorganized establishment If a union asks the employer to voluntarily recognize it as the bargaining agent of the employees as the petitioner did, 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 to determine whether they want a union to represent them. The petitioner's request for voluntary recognition as the bargaining representative of the employees was in effect a request to bargain collectively, or the first step in that direction, hence, the employer's request for a certification election was in accordance with Article 258 of the Labor Code, and the public respondents did not abuse their discretion in granting the request. I concur with the decision of the Supreme Court. The act of SMC in filing a certification of election for the union is nothing but proper. There can be no other reason why the SMC filed the petition for certification election in behalf of the union, it is also for their benefit. The SMC will not gain anything from filing the petition on their behalf. GR No. 85915, Jan 17, 1990 Petitioner labor union sought to represent employees of Triumph International and filed petition for certification election. Triumph opposed contending that the employees sought to be represented by the union were managerial and supervisory employees and are therefore disqualified to join a union whether or not the public respondent gravely abused its discretion in ordering the immediate holding of a certification election among the workers sought to be represented by the respondent union. A. Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Bureau of Labor Relations The Labor Code recognizes two (2) principal groups of employees, namely, the managerial and the rank and file groups. Thus, Art. 212 (k) of the Code provides: k) "Managerial employee" is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial action. All employees not falling within this definition are considered rank and file employees for purposes of this Book. B. Franklin Barker Company of the Philippines v. Trajano The test of "supervisory" or "managerial status" depends on whether, a person possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in Article 212 (K) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (m) of its Implementing Rules and whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. C. Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Sanchez Art. 245 of the Labor Code prohibits managerial employees from joining, assisting or forming any labor organization. Hence, employees who had then formed supervisory unions were classified either as managerial or rank-and-file depending on their functions in their respective work assignments. Petitioner is the recognized collective bargaining agent of the rank- and-file employees of Triumph International. A petition for certification election was filed by the respondent union with the Department of Labor and Employment. A motion to dismiss the petition for certification election was filed by Triumph International on the grounds that the respondent union cannot lawfully represent managerial employees. Labor Arbiter issued an order granting the petition for certification election. On appeal, the public respondent affirmed the Labor Arbiter's order. Triumph International filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the public respondent There is no evidence in the records which sufficiently distinguishes and clearly separates the group of employees sought to be represented by the private respondents into managerial and supervisory on one hand or supervisory and rank-and-file on the other. The respondents’ pleadings do not show the distinctions in functions and responsibilities which differentiate the managers from the supervisors and sets apart the rank- and-file from either the managerial or supervisory groups. As a matter of fact, the formation of a supervisor’s union was never before the Labor Arbiter and the Bureau of Labor Relations and neither is the issue before us. The Supreme Court, therefore, abide by the public respondent’s factual findings in the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion. In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the petitioner is the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of Triumph International. A careful examination of the records of this case reveals no evidence that rules out the commonality of interests among the rank-and-file members of the petitioner and the herein declared rank-and-file employees who are members of the respondent union. Instead of forming another bargaining unit, the law requires them to be members of the existing one. The ends of unionism are better served if all the rank-and-file employees with substantially the same interests and who invoke their right to self-organization are part of a single unit so that they can deal with their employer with just one and yet potent voice. The employees’ bargaining power with management is strengthened thereby. Hence, the circumstances of this case impel us to disallow the holding of a certification election among the workers sought to be represented by the respondent union for want of proof that the right of said workers to self-organization is being suppressed. I concur with the decision of the Supreme Court. The right of the employees to self organization cannot be deprived to them if there is no sufficient evidence to anchor the opposition’s claim that they are not a rank-and- file employee. It must always be remembered that the law is always in favor of the labor.