Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    61 Mariwasa Vs Sec o - DOLE-Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nyla
    This case involves a dispute between two unions - the Associated Labor Unions (ALU) and the Vassar Industries Employees Union (VIEU) - over representation of employees at Vassar Industries. VIEU was formed after 111 of Vassar's 150 employees disaffiliated from ALU. VIEU applied for registration as required by law but was denied on the grounds that ALU was already the registered bargaining agent. The court ruled that as long as an applicant union meets legal requirements, the Bureau of Labor Relations must register it. The court also noted that a certification election should determine the exclusive bargaining representative and the current agreement between ALU and Vassar should remain in effect until a new one is

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    61 Mariwasa Vs Sec o - DOLE-Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nyla
    73 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between two unions - the Associated Labor Unions (ALU) and the Vassar Industries Employees Union (VIEU) - over representation of employees at Vassar Industries. VIEU was formed after 111 of Vassar's 150 employees disaffiliated from ALU. VIEU applied for registration as required by law but was denied on the grounds that ALU was already the registered bargaining agent. The court ruled that as long as an applicant union meets legal requirements, the Bureau of Labor Relations must register it. The court also noted that a certification election should determine the exclusive bargaining representative and the current agreement between ALU and Vassar should remain in effect until a new one is

    Original Description:

    Mariwasa vs Sec o -DOLE

    Original Title

    61 Mariwasa vs Sec o -DOLE-Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between two unions - the Associated Labor Unions (ALU) and the Vassar Industries Employees Union (VIEU) - over representation of employees at Vassar Industries. VIEU was formed after 111 of Vassar's 150 employees disaffiliated from ALU. VIEU applied for registration as required by law but was denied on the grounds that ALU was already the registered bargaining agent. The court ruled that as long as an applicant union meets legal requirements, the Bureau of Labor Relations must register it. The court also noted that a certification election should determine the exclusive bargaining representative and the current agreement between ALU and Vassar should remain in effect until a new one is

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views2 pages

    61 Mariwasa Vs Sec o - DOLE-Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nyla
    This case involves a dispute between two unions - the Associated Labor Unions (ALU) and the Vassar Industries Employees Union (VIEU) - over representation of employees at Vassar Industries. VIEU was formed after 111 of Vassar's 150 employees disaffiliated from ALU. VIEU applied for registration as required by law but was denied on the grounds that ALU was already the registered bargaining agent. The court ruled that as long as an applicant union meets legal requirements, the Bureau of Labor Relations must register it. The court also noted that a certification election should determine the exclusive bargaining representative and the current agreement between ALU and Vassar should remain in effect until a new one is

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION (VIEU) vs.

    HON. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA; as Acting Director of the Bureau of


    Labor Relations, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU), and VASSAR I
    NDUSTRIES, INC. G.R. No. L-46562 March 31, 1978

    FACTS:

    There was in existence a collective bargaining agreement between private respondents A


    ssociated Labor Unions and Vassar Industries, Inc.. Prior to its expiration, 111 of a total
    number of 150 employees of such firm disaffiliated from the former labor organization a
    nd formed their own union. Thereafter, they filed an application for registration of their
    union with the Bureau of Labor Relations, complying with an the requirements of both t
    he Labor Code and its implementing regulations. While such application was pending, p
    etitioner Union filed a petition for certification as bargaining agent for the rank-and-
    file employees of the company. The Med-
    Arbiter denied their plea on the ground that the union was not duly registered with the
    Department of Labor.

    The Acting Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, denied, the application for registr
    ation on the ground that there is a registered collective bargaining agent in the company
    .

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not an application for registration should be denied just because there is alr
    eady a registered collective bargaining agent in the company.

    RULING:

    No. As long as an applicant union complies with all of the legal requirements for registra
    tion, it becomes the BLR’s ministerial duty to so register the union. It suffices then to or
    der that petitioner Union be registered, there being no legal obstacle to such a step and t
    he duty of the Bureau of Labor Relations being clear. Then there is this ruling in Philippi
    ne Labor Alliance Council v. Bureau of Labor Relations that calls for application that “o
    nce the fact of disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, as in this case, a certif
    ication election is the most expeditious way of determining which labor organization is t
    o be the exclusive bargaining representative.” In the meanwhile, if as contended by priva
    te respondent labor union the interim collective bargaining agreement which was entere
    d during the pendency of the petition of the petitioner, has much more favorable terms f
    or the workers of private respondent Vassar Industries, then it should continue in full fo
    rce and effect until the appropriate bargaining representative is chosen and negotiations
    for a new collective bargaining agreement thereafter concluded. This is one way of assur
    ing that both the social justice, and the protection to labor provisions would be effectivel
    y implemented without sanctioning an attempt to frustrate the exercise of this Court’s ju
    risdiction in a pending case.

    You might also like