Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
http://www.chanrobles.com/implementingrulesofthelaborcodefulltext.h
tml 11/10/2011
OMNIBUS RULES TO IMPLEMENT THE LABOR CODE OF THE
PHILIPPI... Page 116 of 136
SECTION 7. Period to answer. The appellee shall file his answer
thereto within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the appeal. The
Regional Director shall, within five (5) calendar days, forward the
entire records of the case to the Office of the Secretary.
SECTION 8. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable. The
Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide
the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The decision of the
Secretary shall be final and inappealable.
SECTION 9. Execution pending appeal. The execution of the order
of the Med-Arbiter shall be stayed pending appeal.
CERTIFICATION PROCESS:
Trajano, G.R. No. L-75321, 20 June 1988, 162 SCRA 318, 322-323)
Anent the petitioner's contention that since the expiration of the CBA
in 1987 private respondent NFSW-FGT-KMU and Dacongcogon had
not concluded a new CBA, We need only to stress what was held in
the case of Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers,
Philippine Labor Union Association (G.R. No. 75700-01, 30 August
1990, 189 SCRA 179, 191) quoting Article 253 of the Labor Code that
"(i)t shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the
existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new
agreement is reached by the parties." Despite the lapse of the formal
effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as continuing in
force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly executed.
Hence, the contract bar rule still applies.
Besides, it should be emphasized that Dacongcogon, in its answer
stated that the CBA was extended for another three (3) years and that
the deadlock was submitted to the Labor Management Council.
All premises considered, the Court is convinced that the respondent
Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in reversing the order of the Med-Arbiter.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the resolution of the
respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations is hereby
AFFIRMED.
Topic: Filing Party, Misrepresentation of Union Officers
Case: DHL Phil. Corp. United RAF Association FFW v. Buklod ng
Manggagawa
Facts
1. A certification election was conducted among the regular rank
and file employees in the main office and the regional branches
of DHL Philippines Corporation. The contending choices were
DHLs and "no union."
2. On the basis of the results of the certification election, with
petitioner receiving 546 votes and "no union" garnering 348
votes, the election officer certified the former as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of the
corporation.
3. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation
(BUKLOD) filed with the Industrial Relations Division of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Petition for the
nullification of the certification election.
4. This misrepresentation was supposedly the basis for their
selection of petitioner in the certification election.
5. Med-Arbiter nullified the certification election and ordered the
holding of another one with the following contending choices:
petitioner, respondent, and "no choice."
6. Setting aside the Decision of Med-Arbiter, DOLE
Undersecretary held on appeal that the issue of representation
proceedings, which are non-litigious but merely investigative and nonadversarial in character (Associated Labor Unions v. Ferrer-Calleja,
179 SCRA 127 [1989]); Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC, 149
SCRA 470 [1987]). Nevertheless, whatever formal defects existed in
the first petition were cured and corrected in the second petition for
certification election.
Third, attached to the original petition for certification election was a
list of 141 supporting signatures out of the 300 employees belonging
to the appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by respondent
FFW-SMQCC. Respondent QCC sought to delete from the list some
36 signatures which are allegedly forged and falsified. Petitioner,
likewise, submitted a joint affidavit of 13 employees, disclaiming the
validity of the signatures therein.
Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13 was disowned,
this leaves 92 undisputed signatures which is definitely more than 75
i.e., 25% of the total number of company employees required by
law to support a petition for certification election. The disclaimer of 13
employees by their respective signatures covers only their own
personal participation and cannot in any way be extended to include
the rest of those who did not question the same.
Moreover, the fact that the list of signatures is undated does not
necessarily mean that the signatures were obtained prior to the 60day period before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining
agreement. What is important is that the petition for certification
election must be filed during the freedom period and that the 25%
requirement of supporting signatures be met upon the filing thereof.
These requirements have been compiled by respondent FFWSMQCC in their first and second petitions, and it was thus incumbent
upon the Med-Arbiter to order a certification election to be conducted
among the rank and file employees of the company (Labor Code of
the Philippines, Art. 256; Warren Mfg. Workers' Union v. Bureau of
Labor Relations, 159 SCRA 387 [1988]; Samahang Mangagawa ng
Pacific Mills v. Noriel, 134 SCRA 152 [1985]).
If indeed there are employees in the bargaining unit who refused to
be represented by respondent FFW-SMQCC, with all the more
reason should a certification election be held where the employees
themselves can freely and voluntarily express by secret ballot their
choice of bargaining representative. A certification election is the most
effective and expeditious way to determine which labor organization
can truly represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining
unit of the company (Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Sec.
of Labor, 201 SCRA 584 [1991]; National Association of Free Trade
Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 164 SCRA 12 [1988]).
We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of
Labor.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Topic: Certification Election, Substantial Support
Case: Port Workers Union etc. v. DOLE
FACTS
-The petitioner argues that under this article, the Med-Arbiter should
automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is
supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit.
SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law when they
submitted the required consent signatures several days after filing the
petition. The petitioner complains that the dismissal of the petitions
for certification election, including its own petition for intervention, had
the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.
-Private respondent ICTSI maintains that the dismissal was based on
Article 256 of the Labor Code as implemented by Section 6, Rule V,
Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted above. Moreover, under
Section 10, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, decisions of
the Secretary in certification election cases shall be final and
unappealable.
-For its part, APCWU questions PWUPs personality in these
proceedings in view of the lack of consent signatures in its petition,
and argues as well that the petitioner has no authority to represent
SAMADA or PEALU, which had not appealed. The private respondent
also invokes Tupas and maintains that the ratification of the new CBA
by the majority of the workers was an affirmation of
their membership in the union that negotiated that agreement.
ISSUE
WON there was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents when they
dismissed the petitions for certification election because the consent
signatures had not been submitted simultaneously with the petition
HELD
YES
-pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the
right to self-organization and collective bargaining, the constant and
unwavering policy of the Court has been to require a certification
election as the best means of ascertaining which labor organization
should be the collective bargaining representative.
-The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious
method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that
shall act as their representative in their dealings with the
establishment where they are working. The holding of a certification
election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented.
-the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the
25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification
election should not be strictlyapplied to frustrate the determination of
the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly,
the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks
to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at
best be given only a directory effect.
-It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not
carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact
not applicable to a petition in intervention.
-the certification election is not litigation but a mere investigation of a
non-adversary character where the rules of procedure are not strictly
applied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct
ascertainment of the labor union that has the support of confidence of
As regards the 25% support requirement, the same has been met. As
previously held by the SC, once the required percentage requirement
has been reached, the employees withdrawal from union
membership (waiver in this case) taking place after the filing of the
petition for certification election will not affect the petition. On the
contrary, the presumption arises that the withdrawal was not free but
was procured through duress, coercion or for a valuable
consideration. Hence, the subsequent disaffiliation of the 6
employees from the union will not be counted against or deducted
from the previous number who had signed up for certification
Topic: Certification of Election: Forced Intervention, Motion for
Intervention
Case: PAFLU vs. Calleja
The basic facts of this case are undisputed:
A petition for certification election among the rank-and-file workers of
the Hundred Island Chemical Corporation was filed with the Bureau
of Labor Relations (BLR) by respondent Malayang Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical Corporation (Samahan,
for short) and was docketed as BLR Case No. A-6-201-87. A motion
to intervene, accompanied by the written consent of twenty percent
(20%) of the rank-and-file employees of the said corporation was filed
by petitioner Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (September
Convention), or PAFLU, on 27 April 1987, Likewise the Katipunan ng
Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI, for brevity) flied its motion to
intervene on 1 June 1987 but unaccompanied by a similar written
consent of the employer's workers. Due to such want of a written
consent, PAFLU moved for the striking out of KAMAPI's motion for
intervention. Acting on said motion, Med-Arbiter Renato D. Parungo
issued an order dated 8 June 1987 denying KAMAPI's motion for
intervention and allowing PAFLU's inclusion in the certification
election. On 17 June 1987, KAMAPI appealed the said Med-Arbiter's
order to the respondent Director of the BLR, who issued the aforequoted order. Thus, on 17 August 1987, this petition was filed. And as
prayed for in the said petition, We issued a temporary restraining
order dated 24, August 1987. Respondent Samahan has contested
the issuance of said restraining order and has prayed that it be lifted
since the delay of the certification election only defeats the
constitutional right of labor to organize.
The main issue in this petition was aptly deposited by the Solicitor
General in his consolidated comment; Whether or not KAMAPI
should be allowed to participate in a certification election thru a
motion for intervention without a prior showing that it has the required
support expressed in the written consent of at least twenty (20%)
percent of all employees in the collective bargaining unit. In taking the
negative stance, petitioner cites Section 6, Rule V of the Rules
Implementing Executive Order No. 111, which reads:
SEC. 6. PROCEDURE. Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional
Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action.
The Med-Arbiter shall have twenty (20) working days within which to
grant or dismiss the petition. In a petition filed by a legitimate
certification election. After all the original applicant had already met
the 20% requirement.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the
Temporary Restraining Order dated 24 August 1987 LIFTED. With
costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Topic: Unorganized Establishment
Case: Sugbuanon Rural Bank v. Laguesma
FACTS: Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., (SRBI, for brevity) is
a duly-registered banking institution with principal office in Cebu City
and a branch in Mandaue City. Private respondent SRBI Association
of Professional, Supervisory, Office, and Technical Employees Union
(APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor organization affiliated with the Trade
Unions Congress of the Philippines (TUCP).1wphi1.nt
On October 8, 1993, the DOLE Regional Office in Cebu City granted
Certificate of Registration No. R0700-9310-UR-0064 to APSOTEUTUCP, hereafter referred to as the union.
On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for certification
election of the supervisory employees of SRBI. It alleged, among
others, that: (1) APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor organization dulyregistered with the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more
supervisory employees; (3) a majority of these employees supported
the petition: (4) there was no existing collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) between any union and SRBI; and (5) no certification election
had been held in SRBI during the past 12 months prior to the petition.
On October 28, 1993, the Med-Arbiter gave due course to the
petition. The pre-certification election conference between SRBI and
APSOTEU-TUCP was set for November 15, 1993.
On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the unions
petition. It sought to prevent the holding of a certification election on
two grounds. First, that the members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact
managerial or confidential employees.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the members of the respondent union are
managerial employees and/or highly-placed confidential employees,
hence prohibited by law from joining labor organizations and
engaging in union activities.
(2) Whether or not the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a
certification election upon the filing of a petition for certification
election by a registered union, despite the petitioners appeal pending
before the DOLE Secretary against the issuance of the unions
registration.
RULING:
(1) Petitioners explanation does not state who among the employees
has access to information specifically relating to its labor to relations
policies. Even Cashier Patricia Maluya, who serves as the secretary
of the banks Board of Directors may not be so classified.
Confidential employees are those who
(1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard
(2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management
policies [specifically in the field of labor relations].9 The two criteria
are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be
considered a confidential employee that is, the confidential
relationship must exist between the employee and his superior
officer; and that officer must handle the prescribed responsibilities
relating to labor relations.
Art. 245 of the Labor Code does not directly prohibit confidential
employees from engaging in union activities. However, under the
doctrine of necessary implication, the disqualification of managerial
employees equally applies to confidential employees. The
confidential-employee rule justifies exclusion of confidential
employees because in the normal course of their duties they become
aware of management policies relating to labor relations. It must be
stressed, however, that when the employee does not have access to
confidential labor relations information, there is no legal prohibition
against confidential employees from forming, assisting, or joining a
union.
(2) One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article
242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive
representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for
purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the
requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a
legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the MedArbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor
organization.16 Nothing is said therein that prohibits such automatic
conduct of the certification election if the management appeals on the
issue of the validity of the unions registration. On this score,
petitioners appeal was correctly dismissed.
Topic: Cert - Employer as Initiating party / Bystander Rule
Case: Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
SYLLABUS
1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR RELATIONS; CERTIFICATION
ELECTION; AS A GENERAL RULE, EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY THERETO;
EXCEPTION. 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 only instance when the employer
may be involved in that process is when it is obliged to file a petition for
certification election on its workers request to bargain collectively pursuant
to Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for a certification election
issues, the employers involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral
bystander.
DECISION
GRIO-AQUINO, J.:
This petition for certiorari * seeks to set aside the resolution ** dated
September 17, 1990 of the Undersecretary of Labor in the case entitled,
"National Federation of Labor v. Hercules Industries, Inc." denying the herein
petitioners appeal from respondent Med-Arbiters Order dated May 25, 1990
declaring the National Federation of Labor (NFL) as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank and file workers/employees of Hercules
Industries, Inc.
Hercules Industries, Inc., herein petitioner, is a corporation duly registered
under Philippine laws which employs more or less one hundred eighty (180)
workers.
On July 30, 1987, private respondent National Federation of Labor (NFL), a
legitimate labor federation, filed a petition for certification election alleging
that the existing collective bargaining agreement would expire in August,
1987 and that it enjoys the support of more than twenty per cent (20%) of
the rank and file employees in the bargaining unit.
On August 21, 1987, by agreement of the parties, the Med-Arbiter issued an
order for the conduct of a certification election with the following choices:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On October 26, 1987, the Med-Arbiter issued an order, the dispositive portion
of which reads:
jgc:chanrobles.com .ph
"1. The Med-Arbiter erred in unqualifiedly accepting all the names appearing
in the July 1987 payroll as eligible voters and in allowing the 98 contract
replacement worker to vote; and
"2. The Med-Arbiter erred in disregarding the fact that an earlier order for
certification election had already been handed down and that the workers
were on strike." (p. 29, Rollo.)
Pending the resolution of the NFLs appeal, a certification election was
conducted on November 7, 1990.
On January 6, 1988, BLR Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja of the DOLE rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
jgc:chanroble s.com.ph
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 only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is
when it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on its workers
request to bargain collectively pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code.
After the order for a certification election issues, the employers involvement
ceases, and it becomes a neutral bystander. (Rizal Workers Union v. Calleja,
supra.).
In this case, the Solicitor General correctly observed that while the
employees themselves never requested the petitioner to bargain collectively,
still, they did not object to the results of the certification election. Hence,
petitioners appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations from the Med-Arbiters
Order certifying the NFL as the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file
employees, and its filing of this petition for certiorari with us, must be
rejected. The employers intervention in the certification election of its
workers is frowned upon by law.
In any event, petitioners challenge against the validity of the certification
election of May 4, 1990 is devoid of merit. Its allegations that no notice of
the certification election had been issued, hence, no copies of said notice
were given to it, nor posted in conspicuous places within the companys
premises; that the payroll of July 1987 was not used as the basis of the
voters list; and that only fifteen (15) out of the ninety eight (98) voters
signed their names showing that they actually voted, were belied by the
minutes of the pre-election conference (Annex "A" of Comment of private
respondent) which showed that petitioner was duly notified of the conference
and attended the same, and that during said conference the Med-Arbiter set
the certification election on May 4, 1990.
chanrobles.com : virtual law library
On the basis of the election minutes, which are the only relevant and
competent evidence on the conduct of the election, the Med-Arbiter did not
err in declaring the NFL as the duly elected exclusive bargaining agent of the
petitioners rank and file workers. That finding should be accorded not only
respect but also finality by this Court for it is supported by substantial
evidence (Chua v. NLRC, 182 SCRA 354).
WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the assailed decision of
the NLRC, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, with costs against the
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
Cruz, J., is on leave.