St.

James School of QC v Samahan ng SRBI v Laguesma NUHWRAIN v Secretary of Labor

Manggagawa sa St. James Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a Double Majority Rule. for there to be a valid
The computation of the quorum should be based on certification election shall automatically be certification election, majority of the bargaining unit
the rank-and-file motor pool, construction and conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a must have voted AND the winning union must have
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora petition by a legitimate labor organization. garnered majority of the valid votes cast.
campus. The motor pool, construction and • Nothing is said therein that prohibits such • Union A and B both failed to reach the
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora automatic conduct of the certification majority since the inclusion of the
campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the election if the management appeals on the probationary and exclusion of the
certi cation election. Hence, the 149 quali ed issue of the validity of the union's supervisory altered the number of votes
voters should be used to determine the existence of registration. from 321 to 337.
a quorum. • In this case the management is assailing • Ascertaining number of valid votes. For (a)
• Qualification of voters; inclusion- that the union and another rank-and-file computing the required majority and (b) to
exclusion proceedings – all employees of union were represented by the same determine who won the elections.
the appropriate bargaining unit at the time federation. In this regard, the court ruled
of the certification election. In case of that despite the affiliation, the local union Purpose of certification election. (a) determine the
disagreement, the contested votes shall be maintains its separate personality. bargaining unit and (b) ascertain the majority
segregated and sealed. representation of the bargaining representative.
SAMMA-Lakas v Samma Corporation
DHL Phils v Buklod ng Manggagawa Unless petitioner's union registration is cancelled in Eagle Ridge v CA
The election officer’s authority to certify the results independent proceedings, it shall continue to have Twenty percent (20%) of 112 rank-and-file
of the election is limited to situations which there has all the rights of a legitimate labor organization, employees in Eagle Ridge would require a union
been not protest filed or if any protest is filed, it was including the right to petition for certification election. membership of at least 22 employees (112 x 205 =
formalized after the five-day period from the closing • In this case, the cancellation of registration 22.4). When the EREU filed its application for
of the election proceedings. of the union was filed by the company and registration on December 19, 2005, there were
• When a protest has been filed, the med- it was granted. The certification was clearly 30 union members. Thus, when the
arbiter can proclaim and certify the winner. revoked. However, the union moved for certificate of registration was granted, there is no
Thus, the decision to certify the results of reconsideration. None of the parties dispute that the Union complied with the mandatory
an election or set them aside due to alleged that the cancellation attained 20% membership requirement.
incidents occurring during the campaign is finality. • Despite the withdrawal of the alleged 6
within the discretion of the med-arbiter. • However, in this case, the petitioner prayed members, there is still compliance because
for the reinstatement of its status as the 20% of 112 employees is 22. (There is
The five-day rule cannot be strictly applied in this legitimate labor organizations. It cannot be still 24 members remaining).
case. In this case, when the med-arbiter gave due granted here.
course to respondent’s petition for nullification, the PICOP v Taneca
election officer should have deferred issuing the An employer is a mere by-stander in a certification However, we are constrained to believe that an
certification results. election proceedings, except when it is the employer "authorization letter to file a petition for certification
• The members disaffiliated after learning of itself who files for certification election on account of election" is different from an actual "Petition for
the misrepresentation and formed their own a request for collective bargaining. Certification Election."
union. Thus, the five-day period cannot be • The provision on status quo only applies to
reasonably complied with. Chris Garments v Sto. Tomas economic provisions. In representation
• Mere technicalities should not be allowed to 60-day freedom period. The first and third petition is issues, the status quo does not apply.
prevail over the welfare of the workers. not barred by res judicata because in the former, the
What is essential is that they be accorded freedom period has yet to commence, while in the Legend International v Kilusan
an opportunity to determine freely and latter, the freedom period already began. The cancellation of KML's certificate of registration
intelligently which labor organization shall should not retroact to the time of its issuance nor
act on their behalf. Employer-employee relationship. Since petitioner should it nullify all of KML's activities, including its
did not appeal this factual finding, then, it may be filing of the petition for certification election and its
considered as the final resolution of such issue. demand to collectively bargain.
SMCC-Super v Charter Chemical Hijo Resources v Mijares
Kawashima applies with equal force here. As a This case is different from the Chris Garments case
result, petitioner union was not divested of its status cited by the NLRC where the Court held that the
as a legitimate labor organization even if some of its matter of employer-employee relationship has been
members were supervisory employees; it had the resolved with finality by the DOLE Secretary, whose
right to file the subject petition for certification factual findings were not appealed by the losing
election. party.
• The Med-Arbiter's order in this case
Heritage Hotel v Secretary dismissing the petition for certification,
Kawashima does not apply due to the date of the election on the basis of non-existence of
petition but the court still ruled in favor of employer- employee relationship was
NUHWRAIN because: issued after the members of the respondent
(1) The allegations of mixed membership was union were dismissed from their
not properly substantiated. It merely employment.
identified the alleged managerial and
confidential employees but did not file Ren Transport v NLRC
supporting evidence to prove the said It bears stressing that Ren Transport had a duty to
description. bargain collectively with SMART. Under Article 263
in relation to Article 267 of the Labor Code, it is
Republic v Namboku Peak during the freedom period — or the last 60 days
The Secretary of Labor is not the real party-in- before the expiration of the CBA — when another
interest vested with personality to file the present union may challenge the majority status of the
petitions. bargaining agent through the filing of a petition for a
• As the officer who rendered the decision certification election.
now subject of these cases, the Secretary • No petition for certification election
of Labor should have remained impartial challenging the majority status of SMART
and detached from the time the cases was filed during the freedom period, which
reached her until the same were being was from November 1 to December 31,
scrutinized on appeal. 2004 — the 60-day period prior to the
expiration of the five-year CBA. SMART
T&H Shopfitters v T&H Union therefore remained the exclusive
Interference on the right to self-organization. bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
(1) Whether the employer has engaged in employees.
conduct which, it may reasonably be said,
tends to interfere with the free exercise of
employees' rights; and
(2) that it is not necessary that there be direct
evidence that any employee was in fact
intimidated or coerced by statements of
threats of the employer
a. if there is a reasonable inference
that anti-union conduct of the
employer does have an adverse
effect on self-organization and
collective bargaining.