G.R. No.

L-77282 May 5, 1989

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) petitioner,
vs.
HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor
and Employment; PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY LABOR UNION (PSSLU); SOUTHERN
PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR (SPFL) and GAW TRADING, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner ALU, through a letter dated May 7, 1986, informed GAW Trading, Inc. that majority of the
latter's employees have authorized ALU to be their sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA), and
requested a conference with GAW for the execution of an initial Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA).
ALU received a letter dated May 12th from GAW, which letter set the meeting on the same date. The
following day, May 13th, ALU transmitted to GAW copies of the proposed CBA. 2 days later, ALU and
GAW executed the CBA.
In the meantime, on May 9th, 2 unions in the company (SPFL and NAMGAW) went on strike after it
failed to get the management of GAW Trading Inc. to sit for a conference respecting its demands
presented at 11: A.M. on the same day in an effort to pressure GAW Trading Inc. to make a turnabout
of its standing recognition of ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees.
After the signing of the CBA, one of the striking unions filed a petition for certification election.
Med-Arbiter ruled for the holding of a certification election in all branches of GAW Trading Inc. as to
which ALU filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
Bureau of Labor Relations granted ALU's appeal (Motion for Reconsideration) and set aside the
questioned Med-Arbiter Order on the ground that the CBA has been effective and valid and the
contract bar rule applicable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract bar rule applies.
HELD:
NO. The subject CBA is defective. The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only when the
following jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (1) possession of the status of majority
representation by the employees' representative; (2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to
bargain. The standing of ALU as SEBA is dubious, to say the least. The only express recognition of ALU
as SEBA in the records is in the CBA. There was precipitate haste on the part of GAW in recognizing
ALU, which recognition appears to have been based on the self-serving claim of ALU that it had the
support of the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. At the time of the supposed recognition,
GAW was obviously aware that there were other unions existing in the unit. Respondent company's letter
is dated May 12, 1986 while the two other unions, went on strike earlier on May 9, 1986. An additional
infirmity of the collective bargaining agreement involved was the failure to post the same in at least two
(2) conspicuous places in the establishment at least five days before its ratification. Also, about 64% of

the workers who "ratified" the CBA now strongly repudiate the alleged negotiation and ratification of the
CBA.
The order for the conduct of a certification election among the rank-and-file workers of respondent GAW
Trading Inc. is AFFIRMED