KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
KATIPUNAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA MANGGAGAWA SA DAUNGAN (KAMADA) VS FERRER-CALLEJA G.R NO. 104692
S!"#$% &' 199
FACTS
Petitioner claims to be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the entire workers n Ocean Terminal Terminal Services Inc. After After a certification certification election, it concluded concluded a collective collective bargaining agreement with the compan. Then respondent union, also comprising Ocean Technical Services Inc. workers was registered. !A"A#A filed a case to cancel the registration of $espondent%s union, contending that the members were alread covered b the existing &'A. On the other hand, private respondent claimed that its existence as a union could not be disturbed, as its registration was made during the freedom period when there was no &'A concluded et. The med(arbiter cancelled respondent%s registration. ISSUE
)hether or not there was alread an existing certified bargaining agreement when the private respondent%s registration was obtained. obtained. RULING
The court stressed the present present laws on union registration registration which are* + nowhere does the law contemplates that once a union of a bargaining unit has registered with #O-, it will prevent all other would(be union from registering* and / in order to establish order and effectivel exercise this right, policies have been instituted that applica applicatio tion n for union registrat registration ion is not valid if filed filed within within one 0+ ear from certification election and1or is done during the effectivit of a &'A unless filed within the freedom period. 2ence, respondent%s registration is not covered b the prohibition. 2ence further, there was et no certified bargaining agent when the private respondent was registered as a union.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
PAGPALAIN *AULERS INC. VS TREJANO G.R NO. 1++21&
JUL, 1&' 1999
FACTS
$espondent Integrated -abor Organi3ation(Pagpalain 2aulers )orkers 4nion 0 I-O( P2I-S, in a bid to represent the rank(and(file emploees 0drivers and helpers of Pagpalain 2aulers Inc., filed a petition for certification election with the #O-. Attached to it, are copies of its charter certificate, its &'-, its &'-, its 'ooks of Accounts, and list of its officers and their addresses. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition alleging that I-O(P2I-S was not a legitimate labor organi3ation due to its failure to compl with the re5uirements for registration under the -abor &ode. It claimed that the books of account submitted b I-O(P2I-S were not verified under oath b its treasurer and attested to b its president. I-O(P2I-S contended that in #epartment Order 6o. 7 Series of +778, had dispensed with the re5uirement that a local chapter of a national union submit books of account in order to be registered with the #O-. The "ed(arbiter ordered the holding of certification election. ISSUE
)hether or not the "ed(arbiter committed grave abused of discretion in allowing #epartment Order 6o. 7 to take precedence over the -abor &ode9 RULING
6o, the -abor &ode does not re5uire the submission of books of account in order for a labor organi3ation to be registered as a legitimate labor organi3ation. The re5uirement that books of account be submitted as a re5uisite for the registration is in the #epartment Order 6o. 7 Series of +778. Such #epartment Order has been issued with authorit of the law. 4nder the law, the Secretar is authori3ed to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the -abor &ode. #epartment Order 6o. 7 onl dispenses with books of account as a re5uirement for registration of a local chapter of a national union. It provides* :a -abor Organi3ation must still maintain books of account, but it need not submit the same as a re5uisite for registration.;
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
TROPICAL *UT EMPLO,EES UNION-CGW VS. TROPICAL *UT FOOD MARKET INC. G.R NO. L-4+49+-99 J/% 20' 1990
FACTS
$espondent compan, organi3ed a local union, the Tropical 2ut mploees 4nion0T24, elected their officers, and adopted their &'- then immediatel sought affiliation with the 6ational Association of Trade 4nions 06AT4. 6AT4 accepted T24%s application for affiliation and $egistration &ertification 6o. <<== IP was issued b #O-. 2owever it was found out that 6AT4 was not registered with #O-. &'A was concluded between parties. 6AT4 received a letter from the T24 informing 6AT4 that the latter was disaffiliating from the federation. 6AT4 re5uested the dismissal of ncinor for violation of Sect. > Art. III of the &'A. $espondent compan, applied for clearance with the Secretar of -abor to dismiss officers and members of T24(&?) and also suspend them. ISSUE
)hether or not the dismissal of petitioner%s emploees resulting from their union%s disaffiliation from the mother federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor practice on the part of the respondent compan and federation. RULING
@S. )hen the T24(&?) disaffiliated from its mother federation, the former did not lose its legal personalit as the bargaining union under the &'A. urther, the union securit clause embodied in the agreement cannot be used to Bustif the dismissal meted to petitioners since it is not applicable to the circumstances. The &'A imposes dismissal onl in case an emploee is expelled from the union for Boining another or fails to maintain membership therein. The instant case does not involve the withdrawal of merel some emploees from the union but the whole T24 from its federation. 4ndoubtedl, since there is no violation of the union securit provision in the &'A, hence no sufficient ground to dismiss the emploees.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
MALA,ANG SAMA*AN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GREENFIELDS (MSMGOUWP) VS *ON. RAMOS G.R NO. 11+90
F$%% 2' 2000
FACTS
"S"? is a local union affiliated with 4-?)P federation. The local union election was held, as a result the defeated candidate filed an impeachment complaint and membership was called for. #ue to the absence of some members, there%s a re5uest for the imposition of fines for those absent members and will be deducted from their wages. The re5uest was denied because it is against certain laws. And this gave rise to the local union declaration of general autonom from the ederation. The federation wanted to place the local union under trusteeship* the federation compelled the compan to terminate the expelled union officers. 4nder pressure the compan terminated the thirt 0>C union officers. ISSUE
)hether or not the emploees were illegall dismissed9 RULING
@es, the charges against respondent compan proceeds from one main issue* the termination of several emploees upon the demand of the federation pursuant to the union securit clause* it must compl with due process. In the instant case, petitioners were expelled for allegedl committing acts of disloalt to the federation. The issue is not purel intra(union matter as it was later on converted into a termination dispute when the compan dismissed the petitioners from work without the benefit of a separate notice and hearing. As to the disaffiliation b the local union, it is settled that a local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union in the absence of specific provisions in the federation%s constitution prohibiting such.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
UST FACULT, UNION ".3 VS ITONIO ".3 G.R NO. 1+12+&
N5#$% 16' 1999
FACTS
Private respondent "arinio, et.al, were dul elected officers of 4ST ault 4nion. The union has a <(ear &'A with its emploer and is set to expire on "a >+, +77D. On October <, +77E various 4ST club presidents re5uested a general facult assembl, thus, union and non(union facult members convened. 6ew sets of officers were elected, in violation of the &'- and that the general assembl was held with non(union members present. 4nion officers were served with a notice to vacate the union office and the &'A was ratified b an overwhelming maBorit. "ed(arbiter declared the election violative of the &'- while 'ureau of -abor $elations 0'-$ director 'itonio upheld the decision. ISSUE
)hether or not the respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recogni3e the officers elected during the general assembl9 RULING
Self(organi3ation is a fundamental right guaranteed b the &onstitution and the -abor &ode. &orollar to the right is the prerogative not to Boin, affiliate with or assist a labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an emploee must not onl signif the intent to become one, but also take some positive steps to reali3e that intent. The procedure for union membership is usuall embodied in the unions &'-.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
EVANGELINE GARIEL VS. SECRETAR, OF LAOR G.R NO. 11&949
M%78 16' 2000
FACTS
Petitioners comprise the xecutive 'oard of the Solidbank 4nion, the dul recogni3ed collective bargaining agent for the rank(and(file emploees of Solid 'ank &orporation. Private repondents are members of said union. The xecutive 'oad decided to retain anew the service of Att. Ignacio -acsina as 4nion &ouncel in connection with the negotiations for a new &'A. "aBorit of all union members confirmed the decision of the xecutive 'oard to engage the services of such lawer as union councel. In its resolution, it stated that ten 0+C percent of the total economic benefits be given to Att. -acsina as his fee. Private respondents instituted a complaint againts petitioners and the union counsel before #O- for illegal deductions of attorne%s fees as well as for 5ualifications of the benefits in the &'A. ISSUE
)hether or not the deductions made b petitioner(compan is valid9 RULING
6o, under the law, no attorne%s fees, negotiation fees and other similar charges of an kind arising from an collective bargaining negotiations or conclusions of bargaining agreement shall be imposed on an member of the contracting union. 2owever, it can b charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon b the parties. urther, an contract or agreement to the contrar shall be null and void. Art. /=+0o provides further, other than for the mandator activities under the code, no special assessment, attorne%s fee or an other extraordinar fees ma be checked off from an amount due to an emploee without an individual unwritten authori3ation dul signed b the emploee. The ?eneral "embership $esolution of the Solid 'ank 4nion did not satisf the re5uirements laid down b law and Burisprudence for the validit of the +CF special assessment for unions% incidental expenses, attorne%s fees and negotiation expense. It lacks individual written check off authori3ation of emploees concerned hence, it cannot be validl deducted.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
GOLDEN DONUTS INC. VS NLRC G.R NOS. 11+666-6
J/% 19' 2000
FACTS
&omplainants were members of the !apisanan ng "anggagawa sa #unkin #onut( &) 0!"##(&) where collective bargaining agreement with the corporation expired on 6ovember +E, +7D7. #uring the freedom period, respondents informed the President of the 4nion that initial &'A negotiation was to be held. #uring the negotiations, the management panel was late and the union panel walked(out. The management asked for an apolog through a letter and re5uested that the &'A negotiation be resumed* however the union panel disregarded it. The 4nion went struck. A complaint was filed b ?olden #onuts to declare the strike illegal. &ounsel for the union and Strikers pleaded for a compromise. ISSUE
)hether or not union ma compromise or waive the right to securit of tenure and mone claims of its minorit members without the latters% consent. RULING
6O. ven if a clear maBorit of the union members agreed to a settlement with the emploer, the union has no authorit to compromise the individual claims of member who did not consent to such settlement. In the case at bar, minorit union members did not authori3e the union to compromise their individual claims. Absent of showing of the union%s special authorit to compromise the individual claims of private respondents for reinstatement and back wages, there is no valid waiver of the aforesaid rights. Since private respondents did not authori3e the union to represent them in the compromise, hence, the are not bound b the terms thereof. Thus, private respondents have not waived their right to securit of tenure nor can the be banned from entitlement of their individual claims.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
TAGA,TA, *IG*LANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLU INC. VS. TAGA,TA, *IG*LANDS EMPLO,EES UNION-PGTWO G.R NO. 14200
J/% 22' 200+
FACTS
The Tagata 2ighlands mploees 4nion 0T24 Philippine Transport and ?eneral )orkers Organi3ation 0PT?)O, a legitimate labor organi3ation said to represent maBorit of the rank(and(file emploees of T2I?&I, filed a petition for certification election before the #O- "ed(Arbiter. T2I?&I opposed T24%s petition for certification elections on the ground that the list of union members submitted b it were defective and fatall flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without pa 0A)O- emploees, as well as emploees of the &ountr &lub, Inc. out of the +7/ signatories, onl 8+ were actuall worked as rank and file of T2I?&I. ISSUE
)hether or not supervisor emploees are prohibited from Boining a labor union9 RULING
6o, Article /=< of the -abor &ode provides that supervisor emploees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organi3ation of the rank(and(file emploees but ma Boin, assist, or form separate labor organi3ation of their own. 2ence, supervisor emploees are allowed to form, assist and Boin their own union. )hat is essential is the nature of the emploees function and not the nomenclature or title given to the Bob which determines whether the emploee has rank(and(file or managerial status or whether he is supervisor emploee.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS EMPLO,EES (ACEA) VS. CALLEJA G.R NO. 9416
N5#$% 1&' 1991
A&TSG The registered respondent 4nion of concerned emploees of the &ourt of Appeals 04&&A filed a petition for &ertification lection with the 'ureau of -abor $elations 0'-$ alleging that the Association of &ourt of Appeals mploees 0A&A which the incumbent bargaining representative no longer enBos the support of the maBorit of the rank(and(file emploees. It was alleged b the respondent union that there was a mass resignation of A&A members, A&A opposed the allegation. A&A countered 4&&A with misrepresentation, forger, and perBur. Petitioner then filed a petition for cancellation of certificate of registration of the 4&&A on the ground of fraud and misinterpretation in obtaining registration certificate. ISS4G )hether or not petition for cancellation of registration of union re5uesting for a certification election is a bar to the resolution of a prior petition for &ertification lection9 $4-I6?G The &ourt after careful perusal ruled in favor of 4&&A b appling the established rule correctl followed b the public respondent '-$ that an order hold certification election is proper despite the pendenc of the petition for cancellation of the registration certification of the respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personalit to perform such act absent an order directing a cancellation. As to the 5uestion of the legalit of labor union in government sector is well settled in accordance with the pertinent provisions of executive order +DC.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
AIRTIME SPECIALISTS INC. VS. FERRER-CALLEJA G.R NO. 0612-16
D7#$% 29' 192
FACTS
$espondent Samahan ng mga "anggagawa sa Asia ) &hapter 0SA"A(ASIA filed, before the "inistr of -abor and mploment, 6ational &apital $egion, two separate petitions for direct certification and1or certification election on behalf of the regular rank(and(file emploees of the petitioners Airtime Specialists and Absolute, Inc. The other respondent Pinagbuklod ng "anggagawa sa ATA&O() &hapter also filed with similar separate petitions in behalf of the regular rank(and(file emploees of petitioners &ountr()ealth #evelopment Ad Planner and "arketing &ounsellors and Atlas $esources. All these cases were consolidated. Petitioners filed motion to dismiss on the following grounds disaffiliation of the rank(and(file emploees, ineligibilit of some signatures because the had less than one ear of service resulting in the non(compliance with the >CF re5uirement. ISSUEG
)hether or not the 'ureau of -abor $elations has discretion in ordering a certification election RULINGG
The court had made it clear that it should give discretion to the court of Industrial $elations, or in this case, the 'ureau of -abor $elations in deciding whether or not to grant a petition for certification election considering the facts and circumstances of which it has intimate knowledge. "oreover, a perusal of Art. /CF re5uirement 0now /CF makes it mandator upon the '-$ to order the holding of a certification election in order to determine the exclusive bargaining agent of the emploees. It means that with such, the 'ureau is left without an discretion but to order the holding of certification election. )here the petition is supported b less than /CF the '-$ has discretion whether or not to order the holding of certification election depending on the circumstance of the case.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
SAN MIGUEL UNION VS. LAGUESMA G.R. NO. 110299
A:" 1&' 199
FACTS
San "iguel 4nion filed a petition with #O-, a certification election among supervisors and exempt emploees of their other branches. The "ed(arbiter ordered the conduct of certification election among emploees of the different plants as one bargaining unit. San "iguel &orporation filed a notice of appeal pointing out the "ed(arbiter error in grouping together all three separate plants into one bargaining unit including supervisor levels > and above whose positions are confidential in nature. ISSUE
)hether or not supervisor level > and = are confidential emploees* if not, do the emploees of the three plants constitute a single bargaining unit9 RULING
6o. The said emploees do not fall within the term confidential emploees. The are not 5ualified to be classified as managerial emploees who are not eligible to Boin, assist or form an labor organi3ation. The are not also allowed to be a member in a labor organi3ation of the rank(and(file emploees but ma Boin, assist or form separate labor organi3ations of their own. An appropriate bargaining unit ma be defined as a group of emploees of a given emploer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire bod of emploees, which the collective interest of all the emploees, consistent with e5uit to the emploer indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
GOLDEN FARMS' INC. :. FERRER-CALLEJA G.R. N5. &&
J3 19' 199
FACTS
Private respondent filed a Petition for #irect &ertification lection or $ecognition in behalf of certain office emploees and foremen before #O-. Petitioner herein opposed said petition on the ground among others that a perusal of the names allegedl supporting the said petition showed that said persons b the nature of their Bobs are performing managerial functions and1or occuping confidential positions such that the cannot validl constitute a separate or distinct group from the existing collective bargaining unit also represented b private respondent. Private respondent 4nion represents the emploees1workers of Petitioner &orporation, who were the same signatories to an earlier Petition for &ertification lection filed in +7D= before the "inistr of -abor known as $OHI &ase 6o. 4$(8C( D=, which was dismissed b a $esolution issued b "ed(Arbiter &onchita "artine3 when it was established that a collective bargaining unit 06- between the &orporation and the rank(and(file emploees was and is in existence at the time of the filing of the said petition for certification election until the present filing. "ed(Arbiter "artine3 singled out in her classification as rank(and(file emploees the foremen of Petitioner &orporation considered from their Boint affidavits and for lack of convincing proof that their supervisor designations are coupled with the actual performance of managerial functions. ISSUE
)hether or not managerial and confidential emploees excluded from Boining unions. RULING
6o. The &ourt ruled that if these managerial emploees would belong to or be affiliated with a 4nion, the latter might not be assured of their loalt to the 4nion in view of evident conflict of interests or that the 4nion can be compan( dominated with the presence of managerial emploees in 4nion membership. A managerial emploee is defined under Art. /+/ 0k of the new -abor &ode as one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to la down and execute management policies and1or to hire, transfer, suspend, la(off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline emploees, or to effectivel recommend such managerial actions. All emploees not falling within this definitions are considered rank(and(file emploees for purposes of this 'ook.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF T*E P*ILIPPINES (PICOP) VS. LAGUESMA G. R. N5.101+
A!%;3 12' 2000
FACTS
Petitioner Paper Industries &orporation of the Philippines 0PI&OP is engaged in the manufacture of paper and timber products. "ore or less =D8 of these supervisor and technical staff emploees are signator members of the private respondent PI&OP( 'islig Supervisor and Technical Staff mploees 4nion 0P'STS4. P'STS4 instituted a Petition for &ertification lection to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisor and technical staff emploees of PI&OP for &'A purposes. PI&OP 5uestioned and obBected to the inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassified as managerial emploees in the light of the reorgani3ation effected b it. PI&OP advanced the view that considering the alleged present authorit of these section managers and unit managers to hire and fire, the are classified as managerial emploees, and hence, ineligible to form or Boin an labor organi3ation. ISSUE
)hether or not Section 2eads and Supervisors, who have been designated as Section "anagers and 4nit "anagers are considered managerial emploees. RULING
6o. The &ourt ruled that "anagerial emploees are ranked as Top "anagers, "iddle "anagers and irst -ine "anagers. Top and "iddle "anagers have the authorit to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of irst(-ine "anagers is simpl to ensure that such policies are carried out b the rank( and( file emploees of an organi3ation. 4nder this distinction, managerial emploees therefore fall in two 0/ categories, namel, the managers per se composed of Top and "iddle "anagers, and the supervisors composed of irst(-ine "anagers. Thus, the mere fact that an emploee is designated manager does not ipso facto make him one. #esignation should be reconciled with the actual Bob description of the emploee, for it is the Bob description that determines the nature of emploment. In the case, the concerned supervisor emploees and section heads indisputabl show that the are not actuall managerial but onl supervisor emploees since the do not la down compan policies. 2ence, finding the subBect supervisors and section heads as supervisor emploees, the are eligible to vote in the certification election.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMP* INTERNATIONAL VS. FERRER-CALLEJA 11 SCRA 119
FACTS
The petitioner is the recogni3ed collective bargaining agent of the rank(and(file emploees of Triumph International with which the latter has a valid and existing collective bargaining agreement effective up to September /=, +7D7. In +7D8, a petition for certification election was filed b the respondent union with the #epartment of -abor and mploment. A motion to dismiss the petition for certification election was filed b Triumph International on the grounds that the respondent union cannot lawfull represent managerial emploees and that the petition cannot prosper b virtue of the contract(bar rule. The -abor Arbiter issued an order granting the petition for certification election and directing the holding of a certification election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all monthl(paid administrative, technical, confidential and supervisor emploees of Triumph International. ISSUE
)hether or not the public respondent gravel abused its discretion in ordering the immediate holding of a certification election among the workers sought to be represented b the respondent union. RULING
6o. The &ourt averred that where the supervisor emploees s ought to be represented b the union are actuall not involved in polic making and their recommendator powers are not even instantl effective since the are subBect to review b at least three 0> managers 0dept. mgr., personnel mgr. And general manager, then it is evident that these emploees does not possess managerial status. This case reveals no evidence that rules out the commonalit or communit of interest among the rank( and(file members of the petitioners, and the herein declared rank(and(file members of the respondent union. Instead of forming another bargaining unit, the law re5uires them to be members of the existing one.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
ENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE' INC VS. FERRER-CALLEJA G.R. N5. 902&
D7#$% 29' 199
FACTS
'eneco )orkerJs -abor 4nion(Association of #emocratic -abor Organi3ations 0')-4( A#-O filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file emploees of 'enguet lectric &ooperative, Inc. 0'6&O alleging that '6&O has in its emplo /+= rank and file emploees that no certification election has been conducted for the last +/ months* that there is no existing collective bargaining representative of the rank and file emploees sought to represented b ')-4( A#-O* and, that there is no collective bargaining agreement in the cooperative. An opposition to the petition was filed b the 'eneco mploees -abor 4nion 0'-4 contending that it was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the subBect workers* that pending resolution b the 6-$& are two cases it filed against '6&O involving bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice* and, that the pendenc of these cases bars an representation 5uestion. '6&O, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming that it is a non(profit electric cooperative engaged in providing electric services to its members and patron(consumers* and, that the emploees sought to be represented b ')-4( A#-O are not eligible to form, Boin or assist labor organi3ations of their own choosing because the are members and Boint owners of the cooperative. ISSUE
)hether or not the emploees of a cooperative are 5ualified to form or Boin a labor organi3ation for purposes of collective bargaining. RULING
6o. 4nder Article /
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
ATLAS LIT*OGRAP*IC SERVICE VS. LAGUESMA 20& SCRA 12
(1992)
FACTS
Private respondents :!ampil(!atipunan; filed petition for certification election on behalf of the :supervisors union;, a union where the supervisor, administrative personnel, production, accounting and confidential emploees of the petitioner were affiliated. Petitioner opposed the petition on the ground that !ampil !atipunan cannot represent the supervisor emploees for the purpose of collective bargaining because said !ampil !atipunan also represents the rank(and(file emploees union. The "ed( Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the private respondent. On appeal, the Secretar of -abor affirmed the decision of the "ed(Arbiter. Petitioner now argue that to allow the supervisor emploees to affiliate with the !ampil !atipunan is tantamount to allowing the circumvention of the :principle of the separation of unions; under Art. /=< of the -abor &ode. ISSUE
)hether a local union of supervisor emploees ma be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of labor organi3ations of rank(and(file emploees for purpose of &'A9 RULING
6O. The &ourt agreed with the petitionerJs contention that a conflict of interest ma arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes. "embers of the supervisor union might refuse to carr out disciplinar measures against their co( member rank(and(file emploees. 4nder Article /=< of the -abor states managerial emploees are not eligible to Boin, assist or form an labor organi3ation. Supervisor emploees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organi3ation of the rank(and(file emploees but ma Boin, assist or form separate labor organi3ations of their own. The &ourt construes Article /=< to mean that supervisors shall not be given an occasion to bargain together with the rank(and(file against the interests of the emploer regarding terms and conditions of work. Thus, if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank and(file or where the supervisorsJ labor organi3ation would represent conflicting interests, then a local supervisorsJ union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank(and(file emploees where that federation activel participates in union activit in the compan.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
UNIVERSIT, OF T*E P*ILIPPINES G.R. N5. 9619
VS.
FERRER-CALLEJA
J3 14' 1992
FACTS
The Organi3ation of 6on(Academic )orking Personnel of 4P 0O6AP4P filed a petiotion for certification election with the '-$. Petitioner 4P did not obBect the petition but another labor union, the All 4P )orkers% 4nion 0All 4P filed a motion for intervention. It alleged that its membership covers both academic and non( academic personnel, and that it aims to unite all rank(and(file emploees in one union. It assented to the holding of the certification election provided the appropriate organi3ational unit was first clearl defined. It observed in this connection that the $esearch, xtension and Professorial Staff 0$PS, who are academic non(teaching personnel, should not be deemed part of the organi3ational unit. The herein respondent '-$ #irector &alleBa decided that the appropriate organi3ational unit should embrace all the regular rank(and(file emploees and that 6o evidence to Bustif the grouping of non(academic personnel separate from academic personnel. She thus ordered the holding of a certification among all rank(and(file emploees, teaching and non(teaching. ISSUE
)hether or not professors, associate professors and assistant professors high(level emploees9 RULING
6o. The functions of the #AP& and 4AP' are merel recommendator. 4ltimatel, the power to hire, fire, transfer, suspend, la(off, recall, dismiss, assign or discipline emploees% rests with the 'oard of $egents. It is also clear that all academic personnel cannot be considered high(level emploees, because not all of them are members of the #AP&14AP'. The must be appointed or elected. 6either can membership in the 4niversit &ouncil elevate the professors to the status of high(level emploees. In addition, the polic(determining functions of the 4niversit &ouncil refer to academic matters, i.e. those governing the relationship between the 4niversit and its students, and not the 4niversit as an emploer and the professors as emploees. It is thus evident that no conflict of interest results in the professors being members of the 4niversit &ouncil and being classified as rank(and(file emploees.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
RE,ES
VS. TRAJANO
209 SCRA 44
J/ 2' 1992
FACTS
The certification election was authori3ed to be conducted b the 'ureau of -abor $elations among the emploees of Tri(4nion Industries &orporation on October /C, +7D8. The competing unions were the Tri(4nion mploees 4nion(Organi3ed -abor Association in -ine Industries and Agriculture 0T44(O-A-IA, and Trade 4nion of the Philippines and Allied Services 0T4PAS. Of the >=D workers initiall deemed to be 5ualified voters, onl /=C actuall took part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the 'ureau of -abor $elations. Among the /=C emploees who cast their votes were +=+ members of the I6!. The ballots provided for three 0> choices. The provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two 0/ contending labor organi3ations, 0a T4PAS and 0b T44(O-A-IA* and, conformabl with established rule and practice, + for 0c a third choiceG :6O 46IO6.; The respondent acting as the officer(in(charge of the 'ureau of -abor $elations sustained the denial b the "ed Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred fort(one 0+=+ members of the :Iglesia ni &risto; 0I6&, all emploed in the same compan, at a certification election at which two 0/ labor organi3ations were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the emploees in the bargaining unit. ISSUE
)hether or not the members of the I6& be allowed to have collective bargaining. RULING
@es. 4nder the Art. /=/ of the -abor &ode which states the rights of legitimate labor organi3ations. A legitimate labor organi3ation shall have the rightG 0a to act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining* and 0b to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the emploees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2
NEGROS ORIENTAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 1 VS SECRETAR, OF DOLE G.R. N5. 14+616
M 9' 2001
FACTS
On #ecember +C, +778, Philippine agricultural commercial and industrial workers union. Trade union congress of the Philippines 0PA&I)4(T4&P filed a petition for certification election on behalf of 6O$&O + chapter, seeking to represent the sevent(seven 088 rank(and(file emploer of 6O$&O +. PA&I)4(T4&P alleged in its petition that it had created a local chapter in 6O$&O + which had been dul reported to #O-. It was further averred therein that 6O$&O + is an unorgani3ed establishment, and that there is no other labor organi3ation presentl existing at the said emploer establishment. The "ed(Arbiter dismissed the petition. The record shown that the petitioner has Bust applied for registration. The corresponding certificate has not et ac5uired the status of a legitimate labor organi3ation. Petitioner filed a "$ but was denied. The appellate court ruled that the secretar of -abor properl treated PA&I)4(T4&Ps "$ 0"otion for $econsideration as an appeal, and the chapter was deemed to have ac5uired legal personalit from submission of the documents. The court also dismissed petitioner contention assailing the composition of the private respondent union. ISSUE
)hether or not &A erred in allowing certification elections when all the member of the union is members of the cooperative. RULING
6o. in &ooperative 'ank of #avao &it, Inc. KS errer &alleBaG an emploee of a cooperative who is member and co(owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining however, in so far as it involves cooperative with emploees who are not member or co(owners* such emploees are entitled to exercise the rights of all worker to organi3ation, collective bargaining, negotiation and others as are enshrined in the constitution and existing laws of the countr. 6o proof was shown that anone of the union members are members or co(owners of the cooperative. It also declared that not all member of the petitioning union are members of the cooperative. The S& said that in so far as it involves cooperatives with emploees who are not members or co( owners, such emploees are entitled to exercise the rights of all the workers to organi3ation, collective bargaining, negotiations and others.
