SMC VS LAGUESMA TESTS TO DETERMINE BARGAINING UNIT.docx

SAN MIGUEL MIGUEL CORP CORP. VS HON. HON. LAGUES LAGUESMA MA and NORTH NORTH LUZON LUZON MAGNOL MAGNOLIA IA SALES LABOR UNION-INDEPENDENT G.R. No. 100485. S!"#$% &1' 1((4

)ACTS* Private respondent union fled or a petition or certifcation election among all the regular sales personnel o Magnolia Dairy Products in the North Luzon Area.  This was opposed y the petitioner and !uestioned the appropriateness appropriateness o the argaining unit to e represented y the union. "t claimed that its argaining history in its sales o#ces$ plants and warehouses is to have a separate argaining unit or each sales o#ce. During the hearing o the petition$ the sustitute lawyer o the petitioner withdrew withdrew its opposition and agreed to consider one argaining argaining unit in the mentioned sales o#ce. %pon the order o the Mediator&Ariter certiying the union as the sole and e'clusive argaining agent or all the regular sales personnel in the North Luzon area$ the petitioner appealed to the (ecretary o Laor contending a mist mista) a)e e in the the deci decisi sion on rou rough ghtt y its its su sus sti titu tute te lawy lawyer er.. "n a peti petiti tion on or or certiorari$the petitioner contends that the prior collective argaining is the most pervasive criterion in determining the approriateness o the *+A. ISSUE* ,hether or not the union represents an appropriate argaining unit. HELD*  -es.  -es. The court ruled in accordance accordance with the tests in determining determining an appropriate appropriate argaining unit. The undamental actors in determining the appropriate collective argaining unit are /01 the will o the employees /2loe Doctrine13 /41 a#nity and unity o the employees5 interest$ such as sustantial similarity o wor) and dutie duties$ s$ or simila similarit rity y o compen compensa satio tion n and wor)in wor)ing g condit condition ions s /(us /(ustan tantia tiall Mutual "nterests 6ule13 /71 prior collective argaining history3 and /81 similarity o  employment status. *ontrary to petitioner5s assertion$ the *ourt has categorically ruled that the e'istence o a prior collective argaining history is neither decisive nor conclusive in the determination o what constitutes an appropriate argaining unit. "ndeed$ the test o grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests . The employees sought to e represented y the collective argaining agent must have sustanti sustantial al mutual mutual interests interests in terms terms o employmen employmentt and wor)ing wor)ing condition conditions s as evinced y the type o wor) they perorm. "n the case at ench$ respondent union sought to represent the sales personnel in the various Magnolia sales o#ces in northern Luzon. There is similarity o employment status or only the regular sales personnel in the north Luzon area are covered. They have the same duties and responsiilities and sustantially similar compensation and wor)ing conditions. The commonality o interest among he sales personnel in the north Luzon sales area cannot e gainsaid. 9urther$ the petitioner cannot insist that there should e one argaining argaining unit. ,hat greatly militates against this position is the  meager number 

of sales personnel in each of the Magnolia sales oce in northern Luzon . :ven the argaining unit sought to e represented y respondent union in the entire north Luzon sales area consists only o appro'imately fty-ve /;;1 employees. (urely$ it would not e or the est interest o these employees i they would urther e ractionalized. The adage