Roland C. de la Cruz CASE No. 52. GR No.

102130 July 26, 1944 GOLDEN FARMS VS SECRETARY OF LABOR AND PFL

FACTS: Petitioner Golden Farms, Inc., is a corporation engaged in the production and marketing of bananas for export. On February 27, 1992, private respondent Progressive Federation of Labor (PFL) filed a petition before the Med-Arbiter praying for the holding of a certification election among the monthly paid office and technical rank-and-file employees of petitioner Golden Farms. Petitioner moved to dismiss claiming that PFL failed to show that it organized a chapter within the petitioner establishment, that there was already an existing CBA between the rank and file employees represented by NFL and petitioner, and that the employees represented by PFL are disqualified by the courts. PFL countered that the monthly-paid office workers and technical employees should be allowed because they were expressly excluded from the coverage of the CBA between Petitioner and NFL. Petitioner argued that the subject employees shoull have joined the existing CBA if they are not managerial employees. On April 18,1991, the Med-Arbiter ordered the conduct of the certification elections. Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor which the LabSec denies the appeal for lack of merit. ISSUE: WON the Monthly Paid rank and file employee can constitute a bargaining unit separate from the existing bargaining units of its daily-paid rank and file employees HELD: Wherefore, Petition dismissed for lack of merit. RATIO: Yes, the Monthly Paid office and technical rank and file employee of the petitioner enjoy constitutional rights to self organization and collective bargaining. The duties of the monthly paid employees primarily administrative and clerical which is of different nature from daily paid employees whose main work is the cultivation of bananas. To be sure, the monthly paid group have even been excluded from the bargaining unit of the daily paid rank and file employees. In the case of UP vs Ferrer-Calleja, the SC sanctioned the formation of 2 separate bargaining units within the establishment. Finally, the SC note that it was Petitioner company that filed the motion to dismiss the petition for election violating the general rule that the employer has no standing to question a certification election since this is the so that the employer has no standing to question a certification election since this is the sole concerns of the workers (Bystander Rule)