Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    The Hercules Industries V SOLE

    Uploaded by

    Arvin Robert
    - The employer, Hercules Industries, Inc., challenged the validity of the certification election conducted among its rank-and-file employees to choose a collective bargaining representative. - The Supreme Court ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification election, which solely concerns the workers, and that the employer's participation is not encouraged. - The Court dismissed the employer's petition, finding that the allegations regarding issues with the election process were belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference and the election, which showed due process was followed.

    Copyright:

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

    The Hercules Industries V SOLE

    Uploaded by

    Arvin Robert
    53 views2 pages
    - The employer, Hercules Industries, Inc., challenged the validity of the certification election conducted among its rank-and-file employees to choose a collective bargaining representative. - The Supreme Court ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification election, which solely concerns the workers, and that the employer's participation is not encouraged. - The Court dismissed the employer's petition, finding that the allegations regarding issues with the election process were belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference and the election, which showed due process was followed.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    The Hercules Industries v SOLE (2)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The employer, Hercules Industries, Inc., challenged the validity of the certification election conducted among its rank-and-file employees to choose a collective bargaining representative. - The Supreme Court ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification election, which solely concerns the workers, and that the employer's participation is not encouraged. - The Court dismissed the employer's petition, finding that the allegations regarding issues with the election process were belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference and the election, which showed due process was followed.

    Copyright:

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

    The Hercules Industries V SOLE

    Uploaded by

    Arvin Robert
    - The employer, Hercules Industries, Inc., challenged the validity of the certification election conducted among its rank-and-file employees to choose a collective bargaining representative. - The Supreme Court ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification election, which solely concerns the workers, and that the employer's participation is not encouraged. - The Court dismissed the employer's petition, finding that the allegations regarding issues with the election process were belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference and the election, which showed due process was followed.

    Copyright:

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

    The Hercules Industries, Inc. vs.

    SOLE

    Facts:

    Hercules Industries, Inc. (company) is a corporation which employs more or less 180 employees. Private
    respondent National Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a petition for CE, alleging that the existing CBA is
    already bound to expire and that it enjoys more than 20% of the rank-and-file employees. MA: issued an
    order for the conduct of a CE with the choices: 1. NFL; 2. Hercules Employees Labor Union (HELU); 3.
    No union.

    Pre-election conference: company charged that the list of voters included 98 scabs (contract replacement
    workers?); 16 capatazes (boss, foreman, overseer); 8 security guards; and 9 managerial employees. MA:
    deleted in the list of voters the managerial employees, security guards and the strike employees who have
    executed a deed of quitclaim and voluntarily accepted separation pay. NFL: appealed the order to the
    BLR, alleging that the MA still allowed for the voting of the 98 contract replacement workers, among
    others. Pending resolution of NFL’s appeal, however, the CE took place.

    BLR: granted the appeal of NFL; rendered the CE as null and void, and ordered a new CE minus the 98
    scab replacement.CE took place, and NFL won as the SEBA of company’s rank-and-file. MA afterwards
    certified the result. Company: filed an MR/appeal with DOLE.DOLE: denied the petition. Hence, this
    petition.

    ISSUE The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the petitioner, Hercules Industries, Inc., as
    employer, may question the validity of the certification election among its rank-and-file employees.

    Held:

    In a long line of decisions, this Court has undeviatingly ruled that the employer is not a party to a
    certification election which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers (Rizal Workers Union v.
    Ferrer-Calleja, 186 SCRA 431). In the choice of their collective bargaining representative, the
    employer is definitely an intruder. His participation, to put it mildly, deserves no encouragement
    (Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, 84 SCRA 469; Filipino Metals Corp. v. Ople, 107 SCRA 211)

    - The employer is not a party to a CE which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers. In the
    choice of their collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder.
    o The only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is when it is
    obliged to file a petition for CE on its workers’ request to bargain collectively pursuant to
    Art. 258 of the LC. After the order for a CE issues. The employer’s involvement ceases,
    and it becomes a neutral bystander.
    o Case at hand: while employees never requested the company to bargain collectively, still,
    they did not object to the result of the CE.
    - Petitioner’s challenge against the validity of the CE is devoid of any merit.
    o Petitioner: no notice of CE had been issued, no copies were given to it, nor posted in
    conspicuous places, the payroll was not used as basis for voters’ list, and that only 15 of
    the 98voters signed their names showing that they actually voted.
    o These allegations are all belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference which
    showed that company was duly notified of the conference and attended the same. The
    minutes of the CE show that the list of voters was copied from the payroll. The same
    minutes also certified that “the CE just concluded was conducted in the most just, honest
    and (free) manner without untoward happening.” And that “we certify that the result
    above is true and correct”. This refutes company’s allegation that only 15 of the 98
    workers signed the master list to show that they actually voted again.
    o Besides, there is no showing that the company protested the conduct of the CE. Book V,
    Rule VI sec. 3 of the Omnibus Rules states:
    “Sec. 3. The Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot question arising
    from the conduct of the election. The interested party may however, file a protest
    with the representation officer before the close of the proceedings.
    Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Such protests shall be contained in the
    minutes of the proceedings.”
    - On the basis of the election minutes, which are the only relevant and competent evidence on
    the conduct of the election, the MA did not err in declaring the NFL as the duly elected
    bargaining agent of the company’s rank and file workers.

    Petition Dismissed.

    You might also like