Family Code of Philippines - Philippines

1
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018

Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
December 6, 2017 union also wanted vctoriano out here because he did not
Transcribed by Glowing Gloria want to follow the USC. So here SC held that the contract
here on the union cannot be made superior of that right to
No recording… free exercise of religion.
Even if the state afford protection in the labor, promotes
---------------- END OF CLASS-------------- 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
December 8 2017 impose by the union security agreement. If your religious
Transcribed by: Glowing Gloria belief precludes you from joining labor union, that should
Recitation on cases not be taken against you that you should be dismissed by
Still we are on the right to self-organization work. The exemption in the law was upheld by the
Let’s start with the cases constitutional _(dli gyd madungog) in this case.
REPUBLIC SAVINGS VS CIR REYES VS TRAJANO

Atty Edig : What was the contention of the letter? What was Even though they are not part of any union, there can still
the issue in this case? Why the letter would considered validly cast their vote in the election.
concerted activity? They were attacking the character of the NOTE: atty ask about the employees who were not part of
president how did it become a union activity? As to any union, minority employee.
nepotism, how does it affect the employees? The purpose of a certification election is precisely the
As to nepotism: it affects the employees because the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the
president failed to be an example by practicing favoritism employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not
to other employees. Because the president acted in this to be represented by a labor organization, and in the
manner, he failed to provide wholesome recommendations affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. If
towards the employees. the results of the election should disclose that the majority
So in this case class, even if it was not a collective of the workers do not wish to be represented by any union,
bargaining issue, the right to self-organizational issue was then their wishes must be respected, and no union may
still being exercised for mutual aide and protection of the properly be certified as the exclusive representative of the
employees. Even if the protestors again are small group of workers in the bargaining unit in dealing with the employer
employees, still it a concerted activity protected by regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
industrial peace act. It is not necessary that the union employment. The minority employees — who wish to have
activity be involved or that collective bargaining is a union represent them in collective bargaining — can do
contemplated. nothing but wait for another suitable occasion to petition
for a certification election and hope that the results will be
VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE different. They may not and should not be permitted,
Atty Edig: So in this case, the Supreme Court did not say however, to impose their will on the majority — who do not
that the right to exercise freedom of religion is superior to desire to have a union certified as the exclusive workers'
the right of self-organization. What the SC said is that the benefit in the bargaining unit — upon the plea that they,
free exercise of the freedom of religion is superior to the minority workers, are being denied the right of self-
contract rights. What we are discussion here is the union organization and collective bargaining. As repeatedly stated,
security clause agreement. Here what happen is Victoriano the right of self-organization embraces not only the right to
wanted to be out the union because of his religion. The
2
form, join or assist labor organizations, but the concomitant, application to cancel the said union submitted by the board
converse right NOT to form, join or assist any labor union. and attested by the president of the organization.
Lets stop here… Q: WHAT HAPPEN TO THE OTHER GROUNDS THAT WAS
----------------END OF CLASS------------------ PREVIOUSLY TO CANCEL THE UNION REGISTRATION?
Jan 4 2018, A: Those other grounds they will become or they will only
No recording.. absent ko affect the airing officers. Example: Non submission of
reportorial requirement such as financial statements,
Jan 5 2018, updated consti-or by laws. So here the non-submission now
Transcribed by GlowingGloria of the consti and by laws are not considered as a ground to
So yesterday we discussed what labor unions, what are their cancel the union registration. But it may cause punishment
rights and the process of its registration, like an for the airing officers of the union.
independent union, etc. Also previously, supervisor and rank and file employees are
What are the grounds to cancel union registration? Before it found in one union, it was a ground to cancel, however the
was 9 now its was 3 under article 245 of the labor code. amendment remove that. So now the excluded member are
NOTE: please check the numbering of the provision, deemed AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE from the list of the
maam said it was Article 245, but in book dated on listed members. So that is the effect. Read article 245.
2015, the ground for cancellation is 247. But the Union affiicatitions it applies to local or charter union.
content are the same GR: A labor union may disaafilate from the mother union, to
ART. 245. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. - form an independent union during the 60 days freedom
The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of period immediately preceeding the expiration of the CBA
union registration: Usually the CBA has a life for 5 years. 2 months before it
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in expires, that is what we call the freedom period and at that
connection with the adoption or ratification of the time aside from negotiating for a new CBA, the charter or
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the the local may disaafilliate from the mother union.
minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took

part in the ratification; HOW DO THEY DISAFFILIATE?
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in ANS: upon a written resolution approved by the majority of
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the the local membership. Adopted by the general membership
election of officers, and the list of voters; meeting called by that purpose.
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members." Note that kanina cancellation which needs 2/3
So here are the three in condensed from but I suggest that votes, ngaun naman disaffiliation which needs a
you read the law proper for exam: majority vote. Also dapat meron talaga sya sa
1. Any falsehood about the constitutional by laws; agenda. Hindi sya pwde issinngit singit lang sa
2. Any falsehood about election of officers; and meeting. Dapat talaga called for that purpose. Let’s
3. Voluntary dissolution. go to the exception of this rule.
So, if the constitution and bylaws or the election has been EXCEPTION: The disaffiliation by the majority where the
found to be fraud or was simulated, according to union may disaffiliate from the mother union even before
jurisprudence, the BIR can cancel the union registration. the 60 days freedom period. So it may be carried out but
The 3rd ground which is the voluntary dissolution which is still by the majority member of the union members in the
2/3 votes of the entire membership with a subsequent 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
(new) union up to its expiration date. For this to happen, a
consent (?) election must be administered again to CHAPTER II
determine which union must carried now since the RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP
federation is no longer_. ART. 250. [241] Rights and Conditions of Membership in a
WHAT IS THE LIMITATION OF THIS DISAFFILIATION? Can Labor Organization.
the union say, ok I will now disaffiliates arbitrarily? The following are the rights and conditions of membership
ANS: this should be done in accordance to the rules of in a labor organization:
procedure stated in the consti and by laws of the federation. a) No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be
Usually, a charter local does not have their own consti and required of the members of a legitimate labor
bylaws. They adopt the consti and bylaws of their federation. organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or
How do they disaffiliates? So accordance to the bylaws of oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed;
the federation. This is also to protect the employees of the b) The members shall be entitled to full and detailed
BU, so that their officers will act arbitrary to their prejudice. reports from their officers and representatives of all
financial transactions as provided for in the
WHO HAS JURISDICTION? constitution and by-laws of the organization;
ANS: BLR – Bureau Of Labor Relation cause it is considered c) The members shall directly elect their officers in the
as an inter-union conflict. local union, as well as their national officers in the
national union or federation to which they or their
WHAT IS THE SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE? local union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals
Ans: it is connected with the disaffiliation by majority. Even of five (5) years. No qualification requirement for
if the union would disaffiliates from the mother federation, candidacy to any position shall be imposed other
the CBA entered into by the federation since ( do u than membership in good standing in subject labor
remember the principle of agency, the P is the employee, organization. The secretary or any other
the A is the union and the A of the A is the federation) since responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary
the federation represents the union, which in turns of Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-
represents the employees, they are the ones who are elected officers, together with the appointive
considered the exclusive bargaining agent during the entire officers or agents who are entrusted with the
proceedings. handling of funds within thirty (30) calendar days
So even if the local union would disaffiliate from the mother after the election of officers or from the occurrence
union, the CBA would still hold true for the BU. Employees, of any change in the list of officers of the labor
cannot revoke validly executed CBA with there employer by organization;
simple changing their bargaining agent. d) The members shall determine by secret ballot, after
due deliberation, any question of major policy
WHAT IS EQUITY OF THE INCUMBENT? affecting the entire membership of the
ARTICLE 240( or Article 240) – All existing federation and organization, unless the nature of the organization
national unions which meet the qualification of a legitimate or force majeure renders such secret ballot
labor organization and none of the grounds for cancelation impractical, in which case, the board of directors of
shall continue to maintain their existing affiliates regardless the organization may make the decision in behalf
of the nature of the industry and the location of the of the general membership;
affiliates e) No labor organization shall knowingly admit as
This was asked in my bar exam. members or continue in membership any individual
4
who belongs to a subversive organization or who is has submitted the financial report requirements
engaged directly or indirectly in any subversive under this Code: Provided, further, That failure of
activity; any labor organization to comply with the periodic
f) No person who has been convicted of a crime financial reports required by law and such rules and
involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for regulations promulgated thereunder six (6) months
election as a union officer or for appointment to after the effectivity of this Act shall automatically
any position in the union; result in the cancellation of union registration of
g) No officer, agent or member of a labor such labor organization;
organization shall collect any fees, dues, or other k) The officers of any labor organization shall not be
contributions in its behalf or make any paid any compensation other than the salaries and
disbursement of its money or funds unless he is expenses due to their positions as specifically
duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and provided for in its constitution and by-laws, or in a
by-laws; written resolution duly authorized by a majority of
h) Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions all the members at a general membership meeting
by a member shall be evidenced by a receipt duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the
signed by the officer or agent making the meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast
collection and entered into the record of the shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary of
organization to be kept and maintained for the Labor or his duly authorized representatives. Any
purpose; irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall
i) The funds of the organization shall not be applied be a ground for impeachment or expulsion from
for any purpose or object other than those the organization;
expressly provided by its constitution and by-laws l) The treasurer of any labor organization and every
or those expressly authorized by written resolution officer thereof who is responsible for the account
adopted by the majority of the members at a of such organization or for the collection,
general meeting duly called for the purpose; management, disbursement, custody or control of
j) Every income or revenue of the organization shall the funds, moneys and other properties of the
be evidenced by a record showing its source, and organization, shall render to the organization and
every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced to its members a true and correct account of all
by a receipt from the person to whom the payment moneys received and paid by him since he
is made, which shall state the date, place and assumed office or since the last day on which he
purpose of such payment. Such record or receipt rendered such account, and of all bonds, securities
shall form part of the financial records of the and other properties of the organization entrusted
organization. to his custody or under his control. The rendering
of such account shall be made:
Any action involving the funds of the a. (1) At least once a year within thirty (30)
organization shall prescribe after three (3) years days after the close of its fiscal year;
from the date of submission of the annual financial b. (2) At such other times as may be required
report to the Department of Labor and by a resolution of the majority of the
Employment or from the date the same should members of the organization; and
have been submitted as required by law, whichever c. (3) Upon vacating his office. The account
comes earlier: Provided, That this provision shall shall be duly audited and verified by
apply only to a legitimate labor organization which
5
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
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
So under number 3, example class, the BU already has an Sec. 5. Grounds for impeachment or expulsion. Failure to
EBA. So even if your union did not win the BU, they will still provide adequate labor education and research services to
charge agency fees. members of a labor organization shall be a ground for the
impeachment or expulsion of the officer or officers
WHAT ARE THE MANDATORY ACTIVTIES AUTHORIZED BY responsible therefor in accordance with the provisions of
LAW? the constitution and by-laws of the labor organization
1. The union is required to educate the members. concerned. Misuse or illegal disbursement of the labor
Under section2 (huh) there is a special fund that education and research fund shall be a ground for
can be part of the check off without individual impeachment or expulsion from the union and punishable
written authorization under the relevant provisions of the constitution and by-
2. Mandatory seminars, conducted to educate the laws of the union and other applicable laws.
members. Read Rule 10 of the omnibus rules
implementing union. WHAT ARE THE UNION SERVICE FEES AUTHROIZED BY LAW?
These was included because of the case Radio
Rule X Communication PH vs Secretary of labor. Magolo ito
LABOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH masyado class
Sec. 1. Enlightenment of unionists as a duty. It shall be the CASE: RADIO COMMUNICATION VS SECRETARY OF
duty of every legitimate labor organization to enlighten its LABOR
members on their rights and obligations as unionists and as Atty Edig: The lawyer was denied of his atty’s fees kay
employees. gimaniobra sa mga officials para maadto ang attys fees sa
Sec. 2. Special fund for labor education and research. Every isa ka non-existent na lawyer. This went court and the union
legitimate labor organization shall, for the above purpose, contended there was no individual written authorization for
maintain a special fund for labor education and research. his attys fees. Because the attorney’s fees here was from a
Existing strike funds may be transformed into labor decision rendered by the BLR. SC HELD: union service fees
education and research funds, in whole or in part. The union authorized by law under section 11 in relation to section 13.
may also periodically assess and collect a reasonable The SC considered the attorney’s fees as part of union
amount from its members for such fund. service fees authorized by law under section11 in relation to
Sec. 3. Mandatory seminars. It shall be mandatory for every sec 13. Attorney’s fees, in any judicial or administrative
legitimate labor organization to conduct seminars and proceedings for the court not exceed 10%. These may be
similar activities on existing labor laws, collective deducted from the total amount due of the winning party.
agreements, company rules and regulations, and other Since the lawyer won the case for the union, there was the
relevant matters. The union seminars and similar activities amount given to the union. So doon magkuha ng 10% and
may be conducted independently or in cooperation with lawyer. Even without individual written authorization. The
the Department of Labor and Employment, the Asian Labor 10% should be given to the lawyer. ( so murag sa judgment
Education Center, the Institute of Labor and Manpower sya kuhaon)
Studies, and other labor-education groups.
Sec. 4. Official receipts. All collections and expenditures of FROM THE CASE: petitioner cannot invoke the lack of an
funds for labor research and education shall be duly individual written authorization from the employees as a
covered by official receipts subject to account examination shield for its fraudulent refusal to pay the service fee of
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his private respondent. Prior to the payment made to its
representative.
8
employees, petitioner was ordered by the Regional Director Public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations correctly
to deduct the 15% attorney's fee from the total amount due ruled based on the evidence presented by the parties
its employees and to deposit the same with the Regional that SAPI, the legitimate labor union, registered with its
Labor Office. Petitioner failed to do so allegedly because of office, is not the same association as CSAI, the
the absence of individual written authorizations. Be that as corporation, insofar as their rights under the Labor Code
it may, the lack thereof was remedied and supplied by the are concerned. Hence, the former and not the latter
execution of the compromise agreement whereby the association is entitled to the release and custody of
employees, expressly approved the 10% deduction and held union fees with Aboitiz Shipping and other shipping
petitioner RCPI free from any claim, suit or complaint companies with whom it had an existing CBA.
arising from the deduction thereof. When petitioner was The expulsion of Nacua from the corporation, of which
thereafter again ordered to pay the 10% fees to respondent she denied being a member, has however, not affected
union, it no longer had any legal basis or subterfuge for her membership with the labor union. Whatever acts
refusing to pay the latter. their group had done in the corporation do not bind the
We agree that Article 222 of the Labor Code requiring an labor union.
individual written authorization as a prerequisite to wage Atty Edig:
deductions seeks to protect the employee against PAFLU VS SEC OF LABOR
unwarranted practices that would diminish his FACTS: The registration certificate of Security System
compensation without his knowledge and consent. 21 Employees Association (SSSEA), which is affiliated to
However, for all intents and purposes, the deductions Philippine Association of Labor Unions (PAFLU), was
required of the petitioner and the employees do not run cancelled by the Registrar of Labor Organizations for
counter to the express mandate of the law since the same failure to comply with some requirements in violation of
are not unwarranted or without their knowledge and Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875.
consent. Also, the deductions for the union service fee in While a motion for reconsideration was still pending,
question are authorized by law and do not require SSSSEA and PAFLU sought to annul all proceedings in
individual check-off authorizations. 22 connection to the cancellation. According to SSSEA and
OK LETS GO TO THE CASES PAFLU, Sec. 23 of RA No. 875 violates their freedom to
assembly and association.
CSAI VS FERRER-CALLEJA ISSUE: WON Sec. 23 of 875 violates their freedom to
FROM KADZ FACTS: Cebu Seaman’s Association, Inc. (CSAI) assembly and association
was organized by marine engineers and deck officers of RULING: NO.
vessels plying Cebu and other ports of PH. The same group The registration prescribed in paragraph (b) of said
was registered as a labor union before the BLR as the section 1 is not a limitation to the right of assembly or
Seaman’s Association of the Philippines, Inc (SAPI). association, which may be exercised with or without said
Two sets of officers are claiming to be entitled of the registration. 2 The latter is merely a condition sine qua
union dues. The first one was led by Nacua and the non for the acquisition of legal personality by labor
other was led by Gabayoyo. According to the latter, organizations, associations or unions and the possession
Nacua has already been expelled as member/officer of of the "rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate
the corporation and that the corporation is one and the labor organizations". The Constitution does not
same with SAPI. guarantee these rights and privileges, much less said
ISSUE: Who is entitled to the union fees? personality, which are mere statutory creations, for the
RULING: SAPI. possession and exercise of which registration is required
to protect both labor and the public against abuses,
9
fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers, although On the other hand, a trade union center is any group of
not truly accredited agents of the union they purport to registered national unions or federations organized for the
represent. Such requirement is a valid exercise of the mutual aid and protection of its members; for assisting such
police power. members in collective bargaining; or for participating in the
Atty Edig: what was the position of the court on the 30 day formulation of social and employment policies, standards,
period invoke the petitioner? and programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in
SMCEU-PTGWO VS SMCEU PDMP accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of the Implementing
FACTS: SMCEU-PTGWO is the incumbent bargaining Rules.
agent of three divisions of SMC. SMCEU-PDMP is a Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
registered chapter of PDMP, a legitimate labor After an exhaustive study of the governing labor law
organization. Subsequently, SMCEU-PDMP filed a provisions, both statutory and regulatory, we find no legal
petition to represent the afore-mentioned three justification to support the conclusion that a trade union
divisions of SMC. center is allowed to directly create a local or chapter
SCMEU-PTGWO sought to cancel the registration of through chartering.
SMCEU-PDMP. In its petition, petitioner accused
respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and PDC VS SEC. OF DOLE
failure to submit the number of employees and names FACTS: Kilusan filed a petition for certification election
of all its members comprising at least 20% of the among rank-and-file employees of PDC, alleging that it
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to is a legitimate labor federation and that its local chapter
operate. PDEU (Progressive Development Employee’s Union) was
ISSUE: Is SMCEU-PDMP a legitimate labor organization? issued charter certifcation.
RULING: NO. Although PDMP as a trade union center is PDC filed a motion to dismiss contending that Kilusan
a legitimate labor organization, it has no power to failed to submit necessary documents, one of which is
directly create a local or chapter. Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP the book of accounts required under Sec. 3 Book V of
cannot be created under the more lenient requirements Rules Implementing Labor Code.
for chartering, but must have complied with the more ISSUE: WON Kilusan failed to substantially comply with
stringent rules for creation and registration of an the registration requirements
independent union, including the 20% membership RULING: YES.
requirement. Where as in this case the petition for certification
Atty Edig: Maam ask about the non-compliance of the election was filed by the federation which is merely an
requirement for registration. What was the ruling? What agent, the petition is deemed to be filed by the chapter,
was exclude by the law? What was the is a TRADE UNION the principal, which must be a legitimate labor
CENTER? Can a Trade union center create a local? What organization. The chapter cannot merely rely on the
happen to the 20% requirement under the law? ( It must be legitimate status of the mother union.
complied with) The Court's conclusion should not be misconstrued as
From the case : as has been held in a long line of cases, the impairing the local union's right to be certified as the
legal personality of a legitimate labor organization, such as employees' bargaining agent in the petitioner's
PDMP, cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is establishment. We are merely saying that the local union
very clear on this matter. Article 212 (h) of the Labor Code, must first comply with the statutory requirements in
as amended, defines a legitimate labor organization[37] as order to exercise this right.
“any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE, and
includes any branch or local thereof.”[38]
10
Atty Edig: was the charter or local here afforded status as an Faculty Union (USTFU) may participate and vote in a legally
LLO? There were not afforded with that status, Y? In the called election for union officers
case , SC held that they do not depriving them of the Atty Edig: so here, it was only a general faculty meeting, this
chance to comply with the requirements but since they do is not limited to union members. It was general faculty
not comply with the reportorial requirements they cannot member kahit dl member of union andun. Note here class
file for petition of COE. They cannot be the EBA here, so the there was an election of the officers of the union offcers.
petition was granted. There is now two sets of union officers/members, one
-------------------END OF CLASS----------------- 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
January 10 2018 bylaws of the union. Even if the management or the UST
Transcribed by GlowingGloria affirmed the new set of officers, that cannot be done, since
QUIZ 1st half nangingi-alam ang ER in this case. How are we going now
Recitation of cases to know the will of the EE. Also SC here, said that even if the
Q: was the failure to submit reportorial requirements a whole faculty is in favor of the new set of officers, SC said __
ground for dissolution? cannot substitute the rule of law. They are bound by the by
A: No maam, what is important is the fundamental right to laws and consti of the union. There is a right way, to do the
self-organization. right thing at the right time.. (alright?? )
This is a very interesting case of UST vs BITONIO GABRIEL vs HON. SECRETARY

UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) vs DIRECTOR FACTS: Gabriel et al comprise the Executive Board of the
FACTS: Respondents Marino et al are duly-elected Union Solid Bank's rank-and-file employees. The Union's
officers of USTFU. In a memorandum dated 21 Sept 1996, Exec Board decided to retain anew the service of Atty
members of the Union were informed that they will have Lacsina, and it was approved in their resolution that 10%
a GA for the election of the new set of officers. The GA of the total economic benefits secured thru negotiations
was attended by members of the Union AND non-Union be given to Atty. Lacsina as attorney's fees.
members. The petitioners are the newly-elected officers Deductions were made on the payroll of the employees.
in the said GA. Marino et al filed a case, questioning the The employees filed a complaint for illegal deduction of
GA election, alleging that the same did not follow the attorney's fees. The Union argues that the agreement in
procedures under the Union by-laws. The petitioners the CBA for the check-off meets the legal requirements.
insist that the election held was a legitimate exercise of ISSUES: WON the check-off valid. NO
their right to self-organization. HELD: The pertinent legal provisions on check-offs are
ISSUE: Was the union election valid? NO, VOID. found in Article 222 (b) and Article 241 (o) of the Labor
HELD: A union election should be distinguished from a Code. Art. 222 provides that no attorney's fees may be
certification election, which is the process of determining, imposed on any individual member of the Union, but it
through secret ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining may be charged against Union funds. Art 241 provides
agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining that no attorney's fees may be checked-off from any
unit, for purposes of collective bargaining. amount due to the employee, without an individual
Specifically, while all legitimate faculty members of the written authorization duly signed him/her.
University of Santo Tomas (UST) belonging to a collective As there were no individual written authorizations signed by
bargaining unit may take part in a duly convened any of the member-employees, the check-off made by Solid
certification election, only bona fide members of the UST Bank and the Union is invalid. As provided under Art. 222,
11
the attorney's fees must be deducted from the Union's recognized the group of Eugenio group. So facundo team
general fund filed ULP. what did SC said about bayer and the new CBA ?
An employer should not be allowed to rescind unilaterally
Atty Edig: From what funds? From the union general fund. its CBA with the duly certified bargaining agent it had
Remember that this is the check off. since the EE here did previously contracted with, and decide to bargain anew
not give their individual written authorization, it cannot be with a different group if there is no legitimate reason for
deducted from their salaries. What the SC did was that it doing so and without first following the proper procedure.
was payable not from their salaries but from the union Bayer here just decided that there be another set of
general fund. employee to represent the union. It is not allowed
considering that there is an existing CBA.
EMPLOYEE’S UNION OF BAYER PHIL vs BAYER ------------------ END OF CLASS------------------
PHILIPPINES
FACTS: EUBP is the Union of all of Bayer Phil's rank-and- JANUARY 11, 2018
file employees. In the CBA negotiation, EUBP rejected Notebook submission, QUIZ , continue with the cases
Bayer's 9.9% wage-increase proposal, resulting in a
bargaining deadlock. In 1997, Remigio et al, without any RODRIGUEZ v HON. DIRECTOR OF BLR
authority from their union leaders, accepted Bayer's FACTS: Under the Union by-laws, the election of officers
proposal. Remigio's group formed REUBP, while must be had every three (3) years in July. The provincial
Facundo's remained as EUBP. elections were set. When the candidate fees were
REUBP questioned Bayer's non-remittance of union dues, increased, the candidates filed cases, yet the elections
and Bayer decided to turn over the same to REUBP.. were nevertheless held in July 1986. The validity of the
EUBP maintains that Bayer act is unfair labor practice elections was questioned, and the members requested
(ULP) as it dealt and negotiated with REUBP despite the that the holding be restrained until ground rules were
existence and validity of the CBA with EUBP. set.
ISSUE: Did Bayer commit ULP? YES. Sumangil filed a case questioning the validity of the
HELD: An employer should not be allowed to rescind increase, arguing that the resolution for such was not
unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified bargaining approved by 2/3 of the vote of the council members, as
agent it had previously contracted with, and decide to provided in the CBL. The Med-Arbiter denied the
bargain anew with a different group if there is no petition, ruling that under Art. 242 of the LC, at least
legitimate reason for doing so and without first 30% of the members of the Union must report the
following the proper procedure. violation, and Sumangil failed to reach such.
Thus, when a valid and binding CBA had been entered ISSUES: Is the 30% membership support indispensable
into by the workers and the employer, the latter is for the acquisition of the BLR's jurisdiction? NO.
behooved to observe the terms and conditions thereof HELD: Law states that a report of a violation of rights and
bearing on union dues and representation. If the conditions of membership in a labor organization maybe
employer grossly violates its CBA with the duly made by "(a)t least thirty percent (30%) of all the members
recognized union, the former may be held of a union or any member or members specially
administratively and criminally liable for ULP. concerned." 4 The use of the permissive "may" in the
provision at once negates the notion that the assent of 30%
ATTY EDIG: So what happen here there were two groups, of all the members is mandatory.
the facundo group and the other group? What did the ER
do? The facundo group has already have a CB. ER
12
Atty Edig: did they comply with the 30%? Was there a need NUBE vs. PEMA AND PNB
to comply with the 30%? No need, y? it is considered as an FACTS: Philippine National Bank (PNB) used to be a
inter-union conflict so there was no requirement for the GOCC banking institution until in 1996, the Securities
30% . upon request by the party or at the initative of the and Exchange Commission changed status of PNB as a
BLR. private corporation. Philnabank Employees Association
1st issue: FROM THE CASE: And further confirmation that (PEMA), a public sector union affiliated with petitioner
the assent of 30% of the union members is not a factor in National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE), which is a
the acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor labor federation composed of unions in the banking
Relations is furnished by Article 226 of the same Labor Code, industry, adopting the name NUBE-PNB Employees
which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction to the Chapter (NUBE-PEC).
Bureau, and the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Later, NUBE-PEC was certified as the sole and exclusive
Offices of the Department of Labor, over "all inter-union bargaining agent of the PNB rank-and-file employees. A
and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was subsequently
problems arising from or affecting labor management signed between NUBE-PEC and PNB. Following the
relations," making no reference whatsoever to any such expiration of the CBA, the Philnabank Employees
30%-support requirement. Indeed, the officials mentioned Association-FFW (PEMA-FFW) filed a petition for
are given the power to act "on all inter-union and intra- certification election among the rank-and-file employees
union conflicts (1) "upon request of either or both parties" of PNB. The petition sought the conduct of a
as well as (2) "at their own initiative." There can thus be no certification election to be participated in by PEMA-FFW
question about the capacity of Rey Sumangil and his group and NUBE-PEC.
of more than eight hundred, to report and seek redress in While the petition for certification election was still
an intra-union conflict involving a matter they are specially pending, two significant events transpired – the
concerned, i.e., the rates of union dues being imposed on independent union registration of NUBE- PEC and its
them. disaffiliation with NUBE. PEMA sent a letter to the PNB
2ND ISSUE: Union dues: As regards the final issue management informing its disaffiliation from NUBE and
concerning the increase of union dues, the respondent requesting to stop, effective immediately, the check-off
Director found that the resolution of the union's Legislative of the P15.00 due for NUBE.
Council to this effect 6 does not bear the signature of at ISSUE: WON PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from NUBE,
least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Council, the resolution of which, in turn, inevitably affects the
contrary to the requirement of the union constitution and latter’s right to collect the union dues held in trust by
by-laws; and that proof is wanting of proper ratification of PNB.
the resolution by a majority of the general union HELD: YES. The right of the local members to withdraw
membership at a plebiscite called and conducted for that from the federation and to form a new local union
purpose, again in violation of the constitution and by-laws. depends upon the provisions of the union's constitution,
The resolution increasing the union dues must therefore be by-laws and charter and, in the absence of enforceable
struck down, as illegal and void, arbitrary and oppressive. provisions in the federation's constitution preventing
The collection of union dues at the increased rates must be disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever its
discontinued; and the dues thus far improperly collected relationship with its parent. PEMA is not precluded to
must be refunded to the union members or held in trust for disaffiliate from NUBE after acquiring the status of an
disposition by them in accordance with their charter and independent labor organization duly registered before
rules, in line with this Court's ruling in a parallel situation, the DOLE
13
By PEMA's valid disaffiliation from NUBE, the bond between Atty Edig: We already know that a local can disaffiliate at
the two entities was completely severed. As NUBE was any time. But in this case there was a valid CBA. In this case
divested of any and all power to act in representation of the CBA is still existing and the 60 days period has not yet
PEMA, NUBE loses it right to collect all union dues held in commenced. How did the SC ruled about this. Class the GR,
its trust by PNB. you can only disaffiliate during the freedom period. So what
is the exception? So this case, even before the onset of the
Atty Edig: no questioned asked .. good 60 period, there was a change/shift of allegiance of the
majority of the members. Remember this case there was
ANGLO V. SAMANA BAY allegation of corruption and it was well substantiated.
FACTS: In December 1993, SAMANA BAY (Samahan Ng Remember class majority shifted their allegiance. It must be
Mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay supported by the majority of the members.
Spinning Mills and J.P. Coats) decided to disaffiliate from On the 2nd issue: we go back to the principle of agency. The
ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor mother union is merely an agent of an agent. The local
Organization) due to the latter’s dereliction of duty to union is the agent of the ER. And the mother union is the
promote the welfare of SAMANA BAY and the alleged agent of the union and not the employees. Ultimately, the
case of corruption. ANGLO overthrew all officers of the one who represents the employee is still the local union.
respondent, and appointed new set of officers, for non-
remittance of federation dues. ANGLO contended that ------------END OF CLASS-----------------
the disaffiliation was void since the freedom period has
not yet set in. JANUARY 18, 2018
MED ARBITER declared the disaffiliation void but TRANSCRIBED BY
maintained that the dismissal of officers was illegal. BONITA BEHN
DOLE reversed and declared that the disaffiliation was
VALID Directed the Company (Manila Bay Spinning Mills) -------------------- END OF CLASS ----------------
to remit the dues directly to SAMANA
ISSUE: Whether or not the disaffiliation of SAMANA was January 24, 2018
valid. Transcribed by: BONITA BHEN
HELD: YES. As a rule, a labor union may disaffiliate from
the mother union only within the freedom period. (PD --------------------END OF CLASS----------------
1391 – “No petition for certification election, for
intervention and disaffiliation shall be entertained or
given due course except within the 60-day freedom JANUARY 25, 2018
period…”) Transcribed By: GLOWING GLORIA
In addition, with respect to the removal of the officers, a QUIZ – lets continue with the cases recitation.
local union does not owe its existence to the federation
with which it is affiliated. Having its own personality, the ATLANTIC VS. LAGUESMA
mother federation has no license to act independently of [G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992]
the local union. Any act performed by ANGLO affecting ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA,
the interest and affairs of SAMANA, including the ouster INC. vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA,
of herein individual private respondent, is rendered UNDERSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR &
without force and effect. EMPLOYMENT; HON. TOMAS F. FALCONITIN MED-
14
ARBITER, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPT. OF II. Yes. The existence of a duly registered Collective
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT; LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA Bargaining Agreement between Atlantic and URFA,
AG & P-SMSG-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
(LAKASNFL) of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the former,
FACTS: In 1990, Atlantic executed a Collective Bargaining including the regular project employees with more than
Agreement with the AG&P United Rank & File one year of service, bars any other labor organization
Association ("URFA") which is the sole and exclusive from filing a petition for certification election except
bargaining agent of all the regular rank-and-file within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the
employees of Atlantic. Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Meanwhile, Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG- ATTY EDIG: Why was there no anymore?
National Federation of Labor ("LAKAS-NFL”) filed a NATIONAL CONGRESS VS. FERRER-CALLEJA
Petition for Certification Election to be certified as the [G.R. No. 89609 January 27, 1992]
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the project NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR
employees of the Steel and Marine Structure at the INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP)-TUCP vs.
BMFY representing approximately 1,000 employees. The HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, in her capacity as Director
petition was granted by the Med-Arbiter, and affirmed of the Bureau of Labor Relations; and the NATIONAL
by the DOLE in an appeal. Consequently, a certification FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW)-FGT-KMU
election was ordered to be conducted. FACTS: NFSW-FGT-KMU and Dacongcogon negotiated
When the project employees with at least one year of for the renewal of their CBA. However, a deadlock in
service were regularized, Atlantic moved for negotiation ensued on the matter of wage increases and
reconsideration alleging that the employees sought to optional retirement. In order to obviate friction and
be represented by LAKAS-NFL are regular employees of tension, the parties agreed on a suspension to provide a
Atlantic and are deemed included in the existing cooling-off period to give them time to evaluate and
Collective Bargaining Agreement of the regular rank-and further study their positions.
file employees of the latter. The motion was denied by Four years thereafter, NACUSIP-TUCP filed a petition for
the Secretary of Labor, hence this present petition. direct certification or certification election among the
ISSUES: rank and file workers of Dacongcogon. NFSW-FGT-KMU
I. Whether the bargaining unit of the project workers moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that there
had ceased to exist in light of the regularization of the is a deadlock of CBA negotiations between it and
said workers. Dacongcogon, but the same was denied.
II. Whether the contract-bar rule applies in this case. ISSUE:
RULING: II. Whether the contract-bar rule applies in this case.
I. Yes. Although the definition in URFA’s CBA does not RULING:
include Atlantic’s regular project employees in the it shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status
coverage of the existing CBA between it and Atlantic, the quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms
regularization of all the project employees with at least and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-
one year of service and the subsequent membership of day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by
said employees with the URFA mean that the alleged the parties. Despite the lapse of the formal effectivity of
project employees whom LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent the CBA the law still considers the same as continuing in
are, in fact, regular employees by contemplation of law force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly
and included in the appropriate bargaining unit of said executed. Hence, the contract bar rule still applies.
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
15
Besides, it should be emphasized that Dacongcogon, in DHL-URFA-FFW especially its president, misrepresented
its answer stated that the CBA was extended for another it to the voting employees as an independent union
three (3) years and that the deadlock was submitted to constituted a substantial misrepresentation of material
the Labor Management Council. facts of vital concern to those employees. The materiality
of such misrepresentation is self-evident.
ATTY EDIG: So the issue here, WON the petition for COE The purpose of a certification election is precisely to
may be filed after the 60 days freedom period and ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice of an
considering that there was no existing CBA considered still appropriate bargaining unit -- to be or not to be
because here there was a deadlock. This was filed after the represented by a labor organization and, in the
freedom period and there was still no CBA then or there is affirmative case, by which one.
existing CBA pero expired nah. What was the ruling of this
case? What was the principle laid down? Here even if no ATTY EDIG: this case is a clear exception to the ELECTION
contract or new CBA, the contract bar rule still applies. YEAR BAR RULE, because false misrepresentation was given
Remember the hold-over principle that I discuss last by the union officers that prejudice freedom of choice of
meeting? it shall be the duty of both parties to keep the the employees, a new COE was allowed in the case.
status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms
and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day ORIENTAL TIN CAN VS. SEC
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the [G.R. No. 116751 & G.R. No. 116779. August 28, 1998]
parties. Since there was a deadlock, there is a continuing FACTS: Oriental Tin Can (OCT) entered into a CBA with
negotiation, of the new CBA. It would be different if there OCTLU as their existing CBA was about to expire. Four
was no negotiation at all. So here, until a new agreement is days later, 248 of the company’s rank-and-file
reach by the parties, the contract bar rule, still applies. employees authorized the Federation of Free Workers
(FFW) to file a petition for certification election. However,
DHL-URFA-FFW VS. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA this petition was repudiated via a written waiver by 115
FACTS: A certification election was conducted among of the signatories who ratified the CBA on the same date.
the regular rank and file employees in the main office OTCWU-FFW filed a petition for certification
and the regional branches of DHL Philippines accompanied by the authentic signatures of 25% of the
Corporation. The contending choices were DHL-URFA- employees/workers in the bargaining unit. OCTLU filed a
FFW and "no union." motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition did
Meanwhile, Buklod filed a Petition for the nullification of not comply with the 25% signature requirement and
the certification election before the DOLE. The officers of maintaining that the new CBA was a bar to a certification
DHL-URFA-FFW were charged with committing fraud election.
and deceit in the election proceedings, particularly by ISSUE: WON the employees’ ratification of the new CBA
misrepresenting to the voter-employees that it was an nullify the timely-filed petition for certification election
independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of the RULING:
Federation of Free Workers (FFW). II. No. The filing of a petition for certification election
ISSUE: Whether the first certification election was valid. during the 60-day freedom period gives rise to a
RULING: NO. The Med-Arbiter and the CA was correct in representation case that must be resolved even though
ordering a new certification election. a new CBA has been entered into within that period. This
The making of false statements or misrepresentations is clearly provided for in Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the
that interfere with the free choice of the employees is a Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
valid ground for protest. The fact that the officers of
16
Hence, the agreement prematurely signed by the union ATTY EDIG: what principle apply? It is the bystander
and the company during the freedom period does not principle. Even if there was inaction (or action?) of the
affect the petition for certification election filed by employer, it cannot affect the petition for COE. Y?
another union.
---------------------- END OF CLASS------------------
ATTY EDIG: no questions January 18, 2018 transcription
___________________________________
SUGBUANON VS. LAGUESMA We will see later that just because you are all regular
[G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000] employees, doesn’t immediately mean that you will belong
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. vs. HON. in one bargaining unit. Certain circumstances may present
UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, differences.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MED- Jurisprudence tells us that also, an appropriate bargaining
ARBITER ACHILLES MANIT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR unit is that which best suits the reciprocal rights and duties
AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 7, CEBU of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of
CITY, AND SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. — the law.
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL, SUPERVISORY, Factors in determining the appropriate bargaining unit
OFFICE, AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION-TRADE So there are several factors that can determine what is an
UNIONS CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES appropriate bargaining unit.
FACTS: APSOTEU-TUCP filed a petition for certification MUTUAL INTERESTS – wages, hours of work, working
election of the supervisory employees of SRBI. The latter conditions and other subjects for collective bargaining.
opposed the petition in a motion to dismiss on the 1. Globe doctrine – essentially is the will of the
grounds that the alleged supervisory employees were employees to be represented. This can be
actually managerial and confidential employees. ascertained through the conduct of a certification
The Med-Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss, while the election. Where other considerations determinative
SOLE denied the consequent appeal. The certification of an appropriate bargaining unit is equally
election was ordered to be conducted. The DOLE denied balanced, the decisive factor for what is an
the appeal as well as the subsequent motion for appropriate bargaining unit is the desire of the
reconsideration, hence this present petition. employees involved.
ISSUE:
II. Whether the Med-Arbiter may validly order the 2. Community of interest rule – also known as the
holding of a certification election despite an appeal substantial mutual interest rule. This is where the
pending against the issuance of the union's registration. affinity and unity of the employees’ interest is
RULING: considered, such as substantial similarity in work
II. Yes. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a and duties, and similarities in working conditions.
certification election shall automatically be conducted by
the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a 3. Similarity of employment status rule – under this
legitimate labor organization. Nothing is said therein rule, the main consideration for an appropriate
that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification bargaining unit is the work status of employment.
election if the management appeals on the issue of the This rule requires that non-regular employees be
validity of the union's registration. grouped as one category and they be considered
separately from regular employees.
17
4. Prior collective bargaining history – jurisprudence 1950s was only one company. Then, it decided to create an
has held that this is not a decisive or conclusive accounting arm called Concentrix. So, some employees of
factor in the determination of an appropriate Ayala went to Concentrix. Can the employees of Concentrix
bargaining unit. It can be one of the determinants say that they demand to still be part of the bargaining unit
only. For example, if the history of the company’s of Ayala?
appropriate bargaining unit has been altered so The SC said NO. By corporate fiction, these two are separate
much that past facts are no longer reliable, only companies already. Thus, you cannot say that the
those factors that have remained the same should employees’ interest in Concentrix is the same as those in
be considered. Ayala.
Also, the SC said that even if the employees of one
5. One Company, One Union policy – the purpose of company are the same persons manning and providing for
this policy, is that if there is one union in one security services to another corporation, they cannot be
company, this strengthens the union’s unity. The considered as the same bargaining unit, even if they share
Supreme Court seriously discourages disunity in the same compound.
one company, as it defeats the purpose of having a So now we know what an appropriate bargaining unit is.
union. _______________________________________
UNION REPRESENTATION
So how do we determine union representation? What are
the modes of determining who should represent the
EXCEPTIONS: employees?
There are two modes: 1. Certification election, and 2.
1. Supervisory employees must have a separate Voluntary recognition.
union from rank-and-file employees. Voluntary Recognition
Proper when:
2. When the employer unit has to give way to 1. No exclusive bargaining representative in a
other bargaining units due to different job bargaining unit (UNORGANIZED)
groupings. 2. No other legitimate labor organization within the
3. When a certain class of employees are bargaining unit.
exempted from the coverage in an existing Essentially, no union has existed in this establishment. That
CBA. is why the employer may merely acknowledge the
In a decided case, the SC has said that for every corporation, legitimate labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
there must be separate bargaining units. So, two representative of the employees.
corporations CANNOT be treated as a single bargaining Requirements for voluntary recognition:
unit even if their businesses are directly related. 1. Joint affidavit of the ER and the Union attesting
For example, Ayala Corp. Let’s say Ayala has many branches. that the Union is the only legitimate labor
So, even if these branches are owned by one and the same organization in the bargaining unit and it has been
mother company, they are considered separate entities. accorded voluntary recognition;
So what is the rationale behind this? Two companies are 2. Such JA must be posted for 15 consecutive days in
distinct entities with separate juridical personalities. The SC at least two (2) conspicuous places within the
has held that even if employees of one corporation were establishment.
originally employees of the other corporation: Ayala in the
18
3. A certificate of Voluntary Recognition filed before During the 60-day freedom period, either party may serve
the DOLE within thirty (30) days from the written notice to terminate or modify the CBA.
recognition. During the freedom period, or even after the freedom
The employees must be aware that there is a LLO being period, if there is no new CBA, both parties are under the
recognized by the employer. As no certification election had duties to keep the status quo and abide by the conditions
been conducted, such notice to the employees is essential. set under the CBA until a new agreement is reached by the
So, upon filing of the Notice of Voluntary Recognition, the parties.
recognized Union becomes the EBR. How does the petitioning union file the PCE?
This is one of the more popular topics in jurisprudence 1. By a verified petition consented by 25% of all
when it comes to certification election because a lot of the employees within the bargaining unit
problems arise during such. These are favorite bar questions.
Certification Election When is the filing of a petition for cert election BARRED?
It is defined as the process of determining the sole and 1. Election year bar rule – within one (1) year after
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees the holding of a successful cert election;
through secret balloting in an appropriate bargaining unit.
2. Voluntary recognition year bar rule – the same as
the election year bar rule, in that one (1) year after
Requirement for a CE: the voluntary recognition by the ER, a petition for
1. Notice for the CE should be posted ten (10) days CE is not allowed;
BEFORE the election, in two (2) conspicuous places
within the establishment; 3. Negotiation year bar rule – when the bargaining
This requirement is mandatory. Absent such notice, the CE agent has commenced and sustained bargaining
is invalid. negotiations with the employer, within one (1) year
Who may file? from the voluntary recognition or holding of a
1. Legitimate labor organization (LLO) of a local successful CE, the petition is not allowed.
chapter, and duly issued a chapter certificate;
(Remember that the Federation is just an agent of 4. Deadlock bar rule – here, the freedom period had
the agent of the employees) already lapsed but there is no new CBA entered
When can the petition of CE be filed? into. So even if there is a deadlock, and the same
1. Unorganized establishment: ANYTIME has been submitted to conciliation or arbitration,
2. Organized establishment: only within the 60-day or the deadlock has been the subject of a valid
freedom period. notice of lockout, there could be no petition for CE
When we say organized establishment, this means that filed.
there are already several LLOs within the establishment, and
there is an existing CBA with one of them. In this situation 5. Contract bar rule – if there is a validly registered
the petition for certification election may be filed only CBA, a petition for CE cannot be filed during such
within the freedom period. existence, except within the 60-day freedom period.
Freedom Period: the 60-day period immediately preceding So class, if the CBA says it shall be valid for five (5) years,
the expiration of a VALIDLY REGISTERED collective does this mean that no petition for CE absolutely cannot be
bargaining agreement. filed for the same duration? YES, except during the 60-day
Remember that the CBA must have been validly registered, freedom period.
if not, the unions may file a petition for CE anytime. Where should the petition for CE be filed?
19
It should be filed before the DOLE Regional Office which 2. Required to be notified that a petition for CE has
issued the petitioning Union’s certificate of registration. been filed within the bargaining unit.
Requisites for a valid petition for certification election: So when can the ER oppose the petition for CE?
1. Unorganized establishment – verified petition Exceptions to the By-stander Principle:
consented to by 25% of all employees in the 1. When there is no employer-employee relationship
bargaining unit; (EER)between the petitioning union and the
2. Organized establishment – employer;
a. verified petition; and 2. If the petitioning union is not listed in the registry
b. written consent of 25% of all the employees in of legitimate labor unions;
the bargaining unit 3. If the registration of the petitioning union is
What is the reason for the non-requirement of such written cancelled (3 grounds);
consent in UNORGANIZED establishments? This is because 4. The BU is not appropriate (mixing);
the LC wants to promote the formation of labor unions in 5. The petition is not supported by the written
establishments. So, as there yet no LLO in unorganized consent of 25% of the employees in the BU
establishments, even if there is non-compliance of the 20% (applicable only in organized establishments);
requirement, there can still be an LLO formed. 6. If the petition is filed within 1 year from the
So upon compliance of the bargaining unit of the written voluntary recognition OR certification election;
consent, it is MANDATORY for the Med-Arbiter in the DOLE 7. The EBR has commenced negotiations with the ER;
to order a certification election. 8. When there is a bargaining deadlock;
As it is mandatory, it can be compelled via a Petition for 9. If the petition is filed during the existence of a
Mandamus. registered CBA (exception: freedom period)
But if the 25% statutory requirement is NOT complied with, What issues may the Med-Arbiter resolve in a petition for
the decision to hold a CE becomes DISCRETIONARY upon CE?
the Med-Arbiter. 1. Existence of EER;
Thus… 2. Eligibility or mixture in union membership.
1. 25% complied with – mandatory upon the Med- What issues are the Med-Arbiter NOT allowed to resolve in
Arbiter; a petition for CE?
2. NOT complied with – discretionary upon the Med- 1. Validity of the union’s registration, EXCEPT if on the
Arbiter. face of the petition, the union is not included in the
Role of the Employer during the Certification Election roster of LLOs;
In a CE, we are only concerned with the representation of 2. Validity of the registration of the CBA, EXCEPT if
the employees. This is the sole concern of the employees, the CBA is not registered at all with the DOLE.
and the employer has nothing to do with this. Who are qualified to vote in a CE?
Bystander Principle – the ER cannot intervene during the CE, All employees covered in the BU, at the time of the issuance
and should strictly maintain a hands-off policy on the CE of the certification for CE, are eligible to vote.
proceedings. Absent any prohibitions, probationary employees, or those
We do not want an employer-dominated union, so the ER who are members of religious sects that prohibit their
cannot have a hand in the proceedings. But this does not members from joining labor unions may vote. This also
mean that the ER cannot do anything during the CE. includes dismissed employees whose complaints for illegal
So during this time, the ER may participate by: dismissal have not yet been resolved.
1. Submitting the list of the names of the employees Challenging of votes
during the preliminary conference; 1. The voter is not an employee of the company, or
20
2. is not a member of the involved bargaining unit What if the election was SUCCESSFUL?
Who can challenge? The proclamation of the winning union shall be done when:
1. Not an employee – 1. No protest has been filed or perfected within the
a.) any of the authorized representatives of any of the five (5)-day reglementary period; or
contending unions; or 2. No challenge or eligibility issue was raised; or
b.) the employer (exception to the By-stander Principle) 3. If there was a challenge raised, the resolution of
When should the vote be challenged? the same will NOT materially change the result of
Before the ballot is deposited in the ballot box. the election.
How can you know if there are voters who cast votes The winning union will now represent ALL of the employees
despite not being employees? Remember that the employer in the bargaining unit, and not only its members.
must submit a list of the names of the employees during Agency fees – dues collected from non-union members of
the preliminary conference before the conduct of a CE. the bargaining unit.
Before he/she can vote, the Union or the ER must COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
immediately challenge the vote. Collective Bargaining Agreement – a contract executed
RUN-OFF ELECTION – when no winner emerged in the CE, upon request of either the EBR or the employer himself
and there is a need to have an election to declare a winner. after negotiating regarding wages, hours of work, and all
Requirements: other terms and conditions of employment, including the
1. CE conducted should have at least three (3) grievance machinery.
choices; What are the processes involved?
2. None of the contending unions obtained the 1. Negotiation of the terms of employment;
majority of votes cast. 2. Execution of the written contract;
3. Total number of votes for all contending unions 3. After execution of the CBA, there will be questions
must be 50% of the votes. interpreting the contract, and negotiating in the
4. There are no challenged ballots which can terms of the new contract, or amendment of a new
materially alter the results. agreement.
For the EBR to be held as such, it must have garnered the Thus, the execution of the CBA does not end the collective
majority of the valid votes cast. bargaining process.
Example, 200 voted. Majority would be 101 votes. As for #3, Actually class, the book says that CB is a continuing process
if there are three choices namely, “Union A, B, and No that never stops. If there are provisions in the CBA that
Union,” A and B must have garnered 100 votes together. need to be changed or amended, collective bargaining can
Who can participate in a run-off election? again resume, subject to the guidelines provided by the
Only two labor unions which received the highest number Labor Code.
of votes can participate in a run-off election. Preconditions for CB:
A “No Union” option must always be present. 1. The Union must possess the status of majority
When is the election considered FAILED? representation in the BU;
When majority of the eligible voters failed to vote. 2. Proof of such majority representation thru a CE;
A Motion for the Holding of a New Certification Election and
may be filed within six (6) months AFTER the Declaration of 3. A demand to bargain was made, as required under
Failure of Elections is issued. Art. 250 (a) of the LC.
If majority of the eligible voters voted for No Union, there is Who are the parties in CB?
no failure of elections. The employees clearly do not want 1. The employer’s representative; and
to be represented.
21
2. The employee’s representative During the freedom period, this only refers to proposals to
negotiate non-representational provisions of the CBA.
Meaning economic provisions.
Who has the duty to bargain? Outside the freedom period, there should be no petition for
Absent the preconditions we stated, the ER is not under any CE filed, since under the LC, the representation aspect of
duty to initiate CB negotiations. the CBA may be for a term of five (5) years.
But upon compliance of the preconditions above, the ER’s All other CBA provisions may be renegotiated within three
duty to bargain begins during the certification year. (3) years after the execution of the CBA.
What does this mean? Within one (1) year from the Example, there is a valid CBA. The LC provides that
certification of the EBR, the employer is compelled to economic provisions may be renegotiated within three (3)
bargain, but this duty to meet and convene promptly for years after the execution of the CBA. After expiration of the
negotiations does not include the duty to agree to a freedom period, the ER shall continue to recognize the
proposal. majority status of the incumbent EBR.
Who signs the CBA? So, if no one will a petition for CE during the freedom
1. Union officers; and period, the status of the Union as the EBR shall continue. It
2. Union managers does not expire even if the CBA has expired.
shall sign the CBA for it to be valid. After signing, the CBA Effectivity and Retroactivity of the CBA
must be posted for five (5) days in two (2) conspicuous 1. New CBA – effectivity date must be agreed upon
places in the establishment. by the parties;
This is a mandatory requirement, under the rules of the 2. Renegotiated CBA or there was an old CBA and
DOLE. you desire to replace it with a new CBA:
After posting, the CBA must be submitted for ratification by a. Renegotiated DURING or WITHIN freedom
the EEs of the BU. The ratification must be made by majority period: takes effect after the expiry of the old
of the covered employees. CBA;
After ratification, the CBA is then submitted to the DOLE for b. Renegotiated AFTER the freedom period:
ratification. effectivity date of the new CBA should be
If the CBA is UNREGISTERED, it is still binding between the agreed upon by the parties. No automatic
parties. But, the CBA will NOT bar the filing of a petition for retroaction.
CE by another union. c. Absent agreement and the case is submitted
So for example, if the union that signed the CBA did not to the DOLE Sec, the arbitral award that states
register the CBA, another union may filed a petition for CE. when the effectivity of the CBA is to take place
This is because the contract-bar rule DOES NOT apply to an is upon the discretion of the DOLE Sec or the
unregistered CBA. NLRC. Prospective or retroactive
During the 60-day freedom period, either party may serve Hold-over Principle – in the absence of a new CBA, the
written notice to terminate or modify the CBA. parties should maintain the status quo, and existing terms
During the freedom period, or even after the freedom and conditions of employment must continue in full force
period, if there is no new CBA, both parties are under the and effect.
duties to keep the status quo and abide by the conditions
set under the CBA until a new agreement is reached by the
parties.
22
January 24, 2018 transcription bargaining unit for they have community or
____________________________________ mutuality of interest, performing work of the
same nature and receiving the same wages and
18. SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS AND compensation although belonging to 3 different
EXEMPT UNION V. LAGUESMA plants of the Magnolia Poultry Division of San
G.R. No. 110399 | August 15, 1997 Miguel.
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 19. SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED VS
Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis. Med-Arbiter SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS
Reynante then ordered their conduct of and EXEMPT UNION
certification as one bargaining unit. But San G.R. No. 146206
Miguel appealed with DOLE contending that (1) FACTS: Following the case of San Miguel
the 3 separate plants should not be grouped Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v.
into one bargaining unit, and (2) supervisory Laguesma, a certification election was
levels 3 and 4 (S3 & S4) should be excluded conducted. On the date of the election, SanMig
because these positions are confidential in questioned the eligibility to vote by some of its
nature. employees on the grounds that some employees
Undersecretary Laguesma declared confidential do not belong to the bargaining unit which
employees ineligible from forming or joining a respondent seeks to represent or that there is no
labor union. He ordered S3, S4 and the so-called existence of ER-EE relationship with petitioner.
exempt employees to be excluded from those
participating in the certification election, and Based on the results of the election, the Med-
directed the conduct of separate certification Arbiter issued the Order stating that since the
elections in each of the 3 plants. Yes vote received 97% of the valid votes cast,
respondent is certified to be the exclusive
ISSUE: WON that the employees of the 3 plants bargaining agent of the supervisors and exempt
constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit? employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry
Products Plants. CA affirmed the Resolution with
HELD: YES. modification stating that those holding the
The SC held that S3, S4 and the exempt positions of Human Resource Assistant and
employees do not fall within the term Personnel Assistant are excluded from the
“confidential employees” who may be prohibited bargaining unit.
from joining a union. In the case at bar, S3, S4
and the exempt employees handle confidential ISSUE: WON CA departed from jurisprudence
information which relate to product formulation, when it expanded the scope of the bargaining
product standards and product specification unit.
which concerns the employer’s internal business
operations and not to the field of labor relations. RULING: NO. In San Miguel vs Laguesma, the
Moreover, SC held that the employees of the 3 Court explained that the employees of San
plants constitute an appropriate single
23
Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products academic EEs and the other for the non-
Plants constitute a single bargaining unit, which academic EEs, considering their dichotomy of
is not contrary to the one-company, one-union interests. Director Calleja however declared that
policy. It held that while the existence of a the appropriate bargaining unit should comprise
bargaining history is a factor that may be of both groups, stating that the intent of EO 180
reckoned with in determining the appropriate was to not fragmentalize the employer (ER) unit.
bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or The University also sought to exclude from the
conclusive. bargaining unit EEs holding supervisory
The test of grouping is community or mutuality positions, alleging that there still existed that
of interest. This is so because the basic test of an held supervisory powers over her other EEs.
asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is
whether or not it is fundamentally the ISSUE: WON academic and non-academic EEs of
combination which will best assure to all UP should comprise a single collective
employees the exercise of their collective bargaining unit.
bargaining rights. Certainly, there is a mutuality
of interest among the employees. HELD: NO. A “bargaining unit” has been defined
The Court affirms the finding of the CA that as a group of employees, consistent with equity
there should be only one bargaining unit for the to the ER, cases have shown the 4 criterion to
employees in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis consider;
of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in (1) will of the employees;
dressed chicken processing and Magnolia (2) affinity and unit of employees' interest,
Poultry Farms engaged in live chicken such as substantial similarity of work and
operations. duties, or similarity of compensation and
working conditions;
(3) prior collective bargaining history; and
17. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. (4) employment status, such as temporary,
FERRER-CALLEJA seasonal probationary employees.
G.R. No. 96189, 14 July 1992 Out of the four, it is the “community/mutuality
FACTS: The Organization of Non-Academic of interests” test that stands out the most.
Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) filed a petition for Applying the same, it's clear that the acad and
certification election with Bureau of Legal non-academic personnel’s respective interests
Relations (BLR). It claimed to represent 33% of contradict with each other, and in effect, failed
all the non-academic personnel of UP-Diliman, to satisfy the “community/mutuality of interest
Los Baños, Manila, and Visayas. All UP Workers’ test.” Thus, the 2 separate and distinct
Union opposed the same and asked that the bargaining units, one unit is for academics and
appropriate organizational unistructure be first the other for non-academic unit personnel, is
defined. It alleged that its membership essential to assure it to all the EEs the exercise of
composed of both academic and non-academic their collective bargaining rights.
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
24
The CIR has found that there is a basic
20. MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT LABOR difference, in that those in the Caloocan shops
UNION SA PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS V not only have a community of interest and
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CIR), working conditions but perform major repairs of
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA railway rolling stock, using heavy equipment and
CALOOCAN SHOPS machineries while others only perform minor
24 SCRA 925 (1968) repairs. Therefore, the workers in the Caloocan
FACTS: There were three (3) union in the shops require special skill which set them apart
Caloocan shops of the Philippine National from the rest of the workers in the Mechanical
Railways (PNR): the “Samahan”, the “Kapisanan Department.
ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad
Company”, and the Mechanical Department
Labor Union. A petition was filed by Samahan 21. FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION –VS–
calling attention to the fact that no certification FILOIL SUPERVISORY & CONFIDENTIAL
election had been held in the last 12 months in EMPLOYEES ASSOC & COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
the Caloocan shops. RELATIONS
46 SCRA 512 [1972]
The petition was opposed by management as FACTS: Filoil Supervisory & Confidential
well as the Mechanical Department Labor Union, Employees Assoc (FSCA) filed petition for
the latter averring that it had been previously certification as sole and exclusive collective
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining bargaining agent of all of the supervisory and
agent of the employees and laborer of the PNR’s confidential employees. The petitioner
mechanical department and it had negotiated (Employer Company) filed a Motion to dismiss
two CBAs with management in 1961 and 1963 arguing that supervisors are not employees,
and that a renewal of the CBA had been re- since they are part of management, they do not
negotiated and is yet to be signed. The CIR, have the right to bargain collectively.
however, found that the Caloocan shops are The then Court of Industrial Relations (CIA) and
separate and distinct from the rest of the NLRB (National labor relations board) ruled in
workers under the Mechanical Department unit favor of FSCA.
represented by the Mechanical Department
Labor Union. ISSUE: WON supervisors form part of the
management and are not considered as
ISSUE: WON the holding of a plebiscite election employees entitled to bargain collectively.
be allowed to determine the desire of the
workers of the Caloocan shops to have a HELD: NO. Supervisor has a dual status as a
separate bargaining unit representative of the management and as an
employee.
HELD: YES. Bargaining units may be formed “Supervisors and confidential employees, even
through separation of new units from existing though they may exercise the prerogatives of
ones whenever plebiscites had shown the management as regards the rank and file
workers’ desire to have their own employees are indeed employees in relation to
representatives.
25
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
Industries Labor Union (PIILU). certification previously allowed under the Labor
Code had been discontinued as a method of
Soon thereafter, SMP-PIILU wrote Permex selecting the exclusive bargaining agents of the
requesting recognition as the sole and exclusive workers. Certification election is the most
bargaining representative of the company’s effective and the most democratic way of
employees. Permex recognized SMP-PIILU and determining which labor organization can truly
entered into a collective bargaining agreement represent the working force in the appropriate
with the said union. The CBA was ratified by the bargaining unit of a company.
members and was subsequently certified by the II. No. The purpose of the rule is to ensure
DOLE. stability in the relationships of the workers and
the management by preventing frequent
NFL filed a petition for certification election but modifications of any collective bargaining
the same was dismissed. An appeal to the agreement earlier entered into by them in good
Secretary of Labor caused the setting aside of faith and for the stipulated original period.
the dismissal and the order of certification Excepted from the contract-bar rule are certain
election among the rank-and-file employees of types of contracts which do not foster industrial
Permex. The choices were NFL, SMP, and No stability, such as contracts where the identity of
Union. the representative is in doubt. Any stability
SMP moved for reconsideration, but the motion derived from such contracts must be
was dismissed, hence this present petition. subordinated to the employees’ freedom of
choice because it does not establish the kind of
ISSUES: I. Whether SMP may be validly industrial peace contemplated by the law. Such
recognized as Permex’s valid [appropriate] situation obtains in this case. SMP entered into a
bargaining unit. CBA with Permex when its status as exclusive
II. Whether the contract-bar rule applies in this bargaining agent of the employees had not
case been established yet.
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 the
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).
27
January 31, 2018 transcription If there is a deadlock, there is a need for a third-party
Unfair Labor Practices in Collective Bargaining to come up to the negotiations as a negotiator or
What are these ULP? arbitrator.
A. If the employer failed or refuses to meet and In a conciliation for deadlock, both the ER and EE
convene with the Union who demanded representatives agree that the deadlock should be
negotiations for CBA: Instances: submitted to a third-party who will decide upon the
1. May opt to not recognize the EBR; conditions of the CBA that will be a win-win solution for
2. The ER, in the guise of transferring his assets to both parties under the CBA.
another ER, but still, there is continuity of But even if there is a conciliator or arbitrator, this does
business; not mean that he can compel the parties to agree to
3. Financial hardship of the ER cannot be used as the CBA. What he can do is, to draft a CBA that will be
an excuse to meet and convene for CBA favorable to both.
negotiations; C. Bargaining in bad faith
Bargaining in good faith: No specific test on what is good Blue Sky Bargaining – you come to the negotiation table
faith-bargaining. Case to case basis. but had no good faith in doing so because the ER or the EE
What are the acts which are NOT deemed as a refusal to demands are too high. They come to the table with the
bargain by the ER? intention of demanding terms that are too high, to cause
1. If the EEs have committed ULP such as an illegal the non-signing of any CBA. Inflexible demands.
strike, the ER may choose not to bargain with the Bargaining in bad faith means there is unwarranted delay in
union which committed the illegal strike; the negotiations, or there it a time limit set when to
2. No request for bargaining; conclude the negotiations.
3. If the Union seeks to represent an inappropriate If the ER or EE representative are in good faith, there must
bargaining unit; do all in their power to come to an agreement.
4. There is comingling of supervisors and rank-and- Boulwarism – this term came from a US jurisprudence. In a
file employees in the same BU; motor company, the ER advertised to his EEs a pre-crafted
5. If the BU chose ‘No Union’; terms and conditions of a CBA. They gave out ads and flyers,
6. If there are unlawful bargaining demands by the and the ER said that this is the most beneficial contract for
union; the EEs.
B. Failure or refusal to bargain on mandatory What the US Court said about Boulwarism is that such
subjects practice does not give the EE representative any leeway to
Mandatory subjects: wages, hours, terms and negotiate beneficial terms for the EEs. This is a take it or
conditions of employments, bonuses, retirement and leave it principle. If you do not agree, the ER will refuse to
pension, transfer. bargain. This is bargaining in bad faith.
Why is there an importance to know the difference D. Gross violation of a contract (not included in exam)
between mandatory and non-mandatory subjects? E. Grievance Machinery Procedure
If for example, there is a bargaining impasse and a _______________________________________
deadlock, and the reason for such is NON-mandatory Union Security Agreements (USA)
subjects, this cannot be a ground for a valid strike or Union Security - is a generic term of an agreement which
lockout due to a bargaining deadlock. imposes upon the EEs of an organization the obligation to
acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting
employment.
28
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
February 1, 2018 transcription (BWLU- ADLO) filed a petition for direct
29. HERCULES INDUSTRIES VS SECRETARY OF certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining
LABOR representative of all the rank and file employees
September 1992 of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO).
BENECO, on the other hand, filed a motion to
FACTS: National Federation of Labor as the sole dismiss the petition claiming , that the
and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and employees sought to be represented by BWLU-
file employees of the petitioner. Petitioner as the ADLO are not eligible to form, join or assist
Employer now questions and assail the validity labor organizations of their own choosing
of the result of the certification of election. because they are members and joint owners of
the cooperative.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner, Hercules ISSUE: W/N employees of a cooperative are
Industries, Inc., as employer, may question the qualified to form or join a labor organization for
validity of the certification election among its purposes of collective bargaining. NO
rank-and-file employees. NO. HELD: The right to collective bargaining is not
available to an employee of a cooperative who
HELD: Employer is not a party to a certification at the same time is a member and co-owner
election which is the sole or exclusive concern of thereof. With respect, however, to employees
the workers. In the choice of their collective who are neither members nor co-owners of the
bargaining representative, the employer is cooperative they are entitled to exercise the
definitely an intruder. His participation, to put it rights to self-organization, collective bargaining
mildly, deserves no encouragement. The only and negotiation as mandated by the 1987
instance when the employer may be involved in Constitution and applicable statutes.
that process is when it is obliged to file a
petition for certification election on its workers’ The fact that the members-employees of
request to bargain collectively pursuant to petitioner do not participate in the actual
Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for management of the cooperative does not make
a certification election issues, the employer’s them eligible to form, assist or join a labor
involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral organization for the purpose of collective
bystander. bargaining with petitioner. It is the fact of
ownership of the cooperative, and not
involvement in the management thereof, which
30. BENGUET ELECTRIC CORP. v HON. CALLEJA disqualifies a member from joining any labor
BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, organization within the cooperative.
INC., petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-

CALLEJA, Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, and BENECO EMPLOYEES LABOR 31. PHIL DIAMOD HOTEL v MANILA DIAMOND
UNION, respondents. HOTEL EEs UNION
G.R. No. 79025. December 29, 1989. GR NO 158075
FACTS: Beneco Worker's Labor Union- JUNE 30, 2006
Association of Democratic Labor Organizations
30
FACTS: The Manila Diamond Hotel Employee’s
Union (the union) filed a Petition for CE seeking Union insists, however, that it could validly
certification as the exclusive bargaining bargain in behalf of "its members," relying on LC
representative of its members. DOLE-NCR 242 (now 251) - A legitimate labor organization
denied the petition for failure to comply with the shall have the right: (a) To act as representative
legal requirements and that the CE was seen to of its members for the purpose of collective
fragment the EEs of the ER (Phil Diamond Hotel). bargaining. Union’s reliance on said article, a
ER advised the union that it was not certified by general provision on the rights of legitimate
the DOLE as the exclusive bargaining labor organizations, is misplaced, for not every
representative and ER could not recognize the legitimate labor organization possesses the
union as such. Because of this, the union filed a rights mentioned therein. Article 242 (a) (now
Notice of Strike and thereafter, conciliation 251- a) must be read in relation to above-
proceedings were conducted. However, a day quoted Article 255 (now 267).
before a scheduled conciliation meeting, the
union suddenly went on strike! ER filed a
petition to declare the strike illegal. NLRC- the 32. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG
strike was illegal. CA- the strike was illegal. PILIPINO (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN), vs. TRAJANO
Argument of union: it sought to bargain for its and VIRON GARMENTS
members only and that the ER’s refusal to G.R. No. 75810 September 9, 1991
bargain would prompt the union to engage in
concerted activities.
FACTS: Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino
ISSUE: KAMPIL Katipunan filed with the BLR a petition
Can the union represent its members in the for certification election among the employees
negotiations for a CBA? of VIRON.
NAFLU opposed the petition. t
RULING: contended that at the time the petition for
No. As per LC 255 (now 267), the labor certification election was filed on April 11, 1985,
organization designated or selected by the it was in process of collective bargaining with
majority of the employees in an appropriate VIRON; that there was in fact a deadlock in the
collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive negotiations which had prompted it to file a
representative of the employees in such unit for notice of strike; and that these circumstances
the purpose of collective bargaining. Only the constituted a bar to the petition for election
labor organization designated or selected by the KAMPIL's petition for certification
majority of the employees in an appropriate election is barred because, before its filing, a
collective bargaining unit is the exclusive bargaining deadlock between VIRON and
representative of the employees in such unit for NAFLU as the incumbent bargaining agent, had
the purpose of collective bargaining. been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or
The union is admittedly not the exclusive had become the subject of a valid notice of
representative of the majority of the EEs of the strike or lockout
ER, hence, it could not demand from ER the right
to bargain collectively in their behalf.
31
HELD: refusal to bargain, discrimination and coercion.
KAMPIL petition should be granted. It is evident Conferences were held after the filing of the
that the prohibition imposed by law on the notice of strike and the parties came to an
holding of a certification election "within one agreement. It was found however, that the
year from the date of issuance of declaration of university filed for a petition for certification
a final certification election result' — in this case, election one hour before the agreement was
from February 27, 1981, the date of the concluded.
Resolution declaring NAFLU the exclusive The union then submitted proposals which were
bargaining representative of rank-and-file again ignored by the university. Marathon
workers of VIRON — can have no application to conciliations were held to no avail. The Sec of
the case at bar. Labor assumed jurisdiction and directed that all
The fact is that from February 27, 1981 — when striking workers to report back to work within 24
NAFLU was proclaimed the exclusive bargaining hours.
representative of all VIRON employees — to
April 11, 1985 — when KAMPIL filed its petition ISSUE: WON certification election can be held
for certification election or a period of more after CBA was agreed upon after 5 years.
than four (4) years, no collective bargaining
agreement was ever executed, and no deadlock HELD: An employer who is requested to bargain
ever arose from negotiations between NAFLU collectively may file a petition for certification
and VIRON resulting in conciliation proceedings election any time except upon clear showing the
or the filing of a valid strike notice. It being existence of either: 1) petition is filed within one
apparent that none of the proscriptions to year from the issuance of a final certification
certification election set out in the law exists in election result OR 2) when a bargaining
the case at bar. deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or
arbitration or had become the subject of a valid
notice of strike or lockout.
33. DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN Deadlock is the counteraction of things
VS SECRETARY OF LABOR producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or
GR. NO. 91915 of neutralization caused by the opposition of
persons or factions. There is a deadlock when
FACTS: On Sept 6, 1984 the med-arbiter certified there is a complete blocking or stoppage
the Divine Word University Employees Union as resulting from the action of equal and opposed
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the forces.
Divine Word University. After three years, the The records of the case shows that there was no
affiliate of the union, Associated Labor Union, reasonable effort at good faith bargaining on
requested a conference with the University for the part of the university. The union after
the purposes of continuing the bargaining submitting proposals which were ignored by the
negotiations. The university maintained it university, remained passive. Technically, the
silence. university has the right to file the petition for
The union thereafter filed a notice of strike on certification election as there was no bargaining
the grounds of bargaining deadlock and ULP, deadlock. However such right was forfeited by
its inaction.
32
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
to submit the list of its rank and file employees SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. vs. HON.
based on the company payroll 3 months prior to UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA,
the filing of the petition. Respondent company DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
failed to submit the list. The certification election MED-ARBITER ACHILLES MANIT, DEPARTMENT
was held, using as voter’s list the list of PPC OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL
employees requested from the SSS. MNMPP OFFICE NO. 7, CEBU CITY, AND SUGBUANON
won. RURAL BANK, INC. — ASSOCIATION OF
PROFESSIONAL, SUPERVISORY, OFFICE, AND
ISSUE: TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION-TRADE UNIONS
Was the use of the SSS list in violation of the CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
which prescribes the use of the company payroll FACTS: APSOTEU-TUCP filed a petition for
as basis for the voter’s list? certification election of the supervisory
employees of SRBI. The latter opposed the
HELD: petition in a motion to dismiss on the grounds
NO. It should ideally be the payroll which should that the alleged supervisory employees were
have been used for the purpose of the election. actually managerial and confidential employees
However, the unjustified refusal of a company to prohibited from forming or joining a union, and
submit the payroll in its custody, despite efforts that ALU-TUCP also sought to represent the rank
to make it produce it, compelled resort to the and file employees of SRBI, thereby violating the
SSS list as the next best source of information. principle of separation of unions.
After all, the SSS list is a public record whose The Med-Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss,
regularity is presumed. It is the policy of the while the SOLE denied the consequent appeal.
Labor Code to encourage the holding of a The certification election was ordered to be
certification election as the definitive and certain conducted. SRBI then sought to cancel the
way of ascertaining the choice of employees as registration of the APSOTEU-TUCP. The DOLE
to the labor organization in a collective denied the appeal as well as the subsequent
bargaining unit. Insistence on the application of motion for reconsideration, hence this present
the Omnibus Implementing Rules could defeat petition.
this policy. Worse, it could facilitate fraud by
employers who can easily suppress the payroll ISSUES:
to prevent certification elections from being I. Whether the alleged supervisory employees
held. are actually managerial and confidential
Considering all the arguments presented above, employees.
we find no substantial reason to nullify the II. Whether the Med-Arbiter may validly order
certification election conducted on the basis of a the holding of a certification election despite an
mere technicality. appeal pending before the DOLE Secretary
against the issuance of the union's registration.
28. SUGBUANON VS. LAGUESMA RULING:

[G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000] I. No. Cashiers, Accountant, and Acting Chief of
the Loans Department of SRBI did not possess
34
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.

Family Code of Philippines - Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family Code of Philippines - Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family Code of Philippines - Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018

REPUBLIC SAVINGS VS CIR REYES VS TRAJANO

minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took

3. Voluntary dissolution. go to the exception of this rule.

This is a very interesting case of UST vs BITONIO GABRIEL vs HON. SECRETARY

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, organization within the cooperative.

INC., petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-

28. SUGBUANON VS. LAGUESMA RULING:

You might also like