Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

01.

Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard Members of SAMAHAN registered as a worker’s The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from
v. Bureau of Labor Relations, association. HANJIN asked cancellation of exercising the said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right
registration on the ground that members of granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. 53 Also
SAMAHAN are employees, and not eligible to inherent in the right to self-organization is the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes
form a worker’s association. SC held that it is up to of collective bargaining or a workers' association for purposes of providing mutual aid and protection.
workers to choose whether to form a union or an There is no provision in the Labor Code that states that employees with definite employers may form,
association, so SAMAHAN can form an assoc. join or assist unions only.

A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for collective bargaining and
for other legitimate purpose,46 while a workers' association is an organization of workers formed for
the mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective
bargaining.47

Any labor organization which may or may not be a union may deal with the employer. This explains
why a workers' association or organization does not always have to be a labor union and why
employer-employee collective interactions are not always collective bargaining

2 KNITJOY MANUFACTURING, INC., petitioner, vs. KNITJOY had a negotiation for a CBA with CFW, a The right to form a union or association or to self-organization comprehends two (2) broad notions, to
PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of Bureau of union of rank and file EEs paid on a daily basis or wit: (a) the liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of restraint which guarantees that the employee may
Labor Relations, and KNITJOY MONTHLY piece rate basis. During the pendency of these act for himself without being prevented by law, and (b) the power, by virtue of which an employee
EMPLOYEES UNION negotiations, KMEU filed a petition for may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association It is, therefore, the employee who
certification election, CFW, KMEA-CCLU and should decide for himself whether he should join or not an association; and should he choose to join,
another union intervened. The petition was he himself makes up his mind as to which association he would join; and even after he has joined, he
dismissed and was ordered to form a single union still retains the liberty and the power to leave and cancel his membership with said organization at
for the company. Upon appeal with BLR, KNITJOY any time. Inasmuch as what both the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act have recognized, and
argued that the EEs of the monthly paid and daily guaranteed to the employee, is the ‘right’ to join associations of his choice, it would be absurd to say
paid EEs have the same working incentives and that the law also imposes, in the same breath, upon the employee the duty to join associations. The
that CFW is willing to include the monthly paid law does not enjoin an employee to sign up with any association..
EEs. BLR Director granted the execution of the
certification election. Issue arose as to whether
KMEU can be an appropriate bargaining unit
separate and distinct from the existing unit
composed of daily paid EEs. SC held that they can
do so. The LC is in favor of a one union one
company policy but it has exceptions. Article 245
of the LC expressly allows supervisory employees
who are not performing managerial functions to
join, assist or form their separate union but bars
them from membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees. This allows more
than one union in a company. Also, it is allowed if
to give way to other units. Here, it was shown that
KMEU was expressly excluded in the negotiation
between KNITJOY and daily rate EEs. Insofar as
monthly paid EEs are concerned, KNITJOY and
CFW cannot prevent or infringe the right of these
monthly paid EEs to form a union and enter into
collective bargaining negotiations. KMEU had the
unquestioned and undisputed right to seek
certification as the exclusive bargaining
representative for the monthly paid rank-and-file
employees; both KNITJOY and CFW cannot block
the same.

3. DBP v COA
The Union of supervisory employees, representing Route managers are managerial employees who are ineligible to join, form or assist a union under the
4 United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union v. the route managers at the company, is challenging Labor Code. Unlike managers, supervisors can unionize.
Laguesma the constitutionality of Art. 245 of the Labor Code,
which states that managerial employees to be
ineligible to form, assist or join unions. It is
alleging that the provision runs contrary to Art. III,
sec. 8 of the Constitution, which provides that the
right of the people, including those employed in
the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged. The
Supreme Court first determined who are
managerial employees and ruled that the route
managers, by virtue of the nature of their job, are
managerial employees and therefore, ineligible to
organize. The Supreme Court then looked into the
evolution of the right of the supervisors to
organize, wherein under the present rule: the
ineligibility of managerial employees to unionize is
retained but the right of supervisory employees to
unionize is revived. Lastly, the Supreme Court
ruled that Art. 245 is constitutional. It reasoned
that if these managerial employees would belong
to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might
not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in
view of evident conflict of interests. The Union
can also become company- dominated with the
presence of managerial employees in Union
membership.

5. San Miguel Corp v. Laguesma


Petitioner union filed a Petition for Certification
Election as to the supervisors and exempt
employees in the three different plants of
respondent corporation. Respondent corporation
questioned whether supervisors and other
exempt employees were eligible to form a union
as they were supposedly “confidential employees”
of the company, and that the employees from the
three different plants should only be considered
as one bargaining unit. The Court ruled that the
employees herein are not confidential employees.
They are not vested with the powers and
prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, layoff, recall, discharge or dismiss
employees. They are, therefore, not qualified to
be classified as managerial employees who, under
Article 245of the Labor Code. Furthermore, they
can form one bargaining unit only. Geographical
location can be completely disregarded if the
communal or mutual interests of the employees
are not sacrificed.

6. Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg.


The Union for the Management’s rank-and-file
employees filed a Petition for Certification
Election. The Management Moved to Dismiss the
Petition on the ground that it lacked legal
personality because its membership consists of a
co- mingling between rank-and-file and
supervisory employees, thereby violating the
statutory prohibition on co-mingling. The
Supreme Court ruled that the Petition must be
granted, and the dismissal would not be proper,
for the following reasons. First, applying the Lopez
case, although co-mingling is prohibited, such
circumstance does not affect its personality.
Second, also applying the Lopez case, a labor
organization cannot be collaterally attacked after a
labor organization has been registered.

7. AIM v AIM faculty


8. Coca Cola Bottlers v Ilocos Professional and
Technical Employees Union
9. The heritage hotel manila v Secretary of Labor
10. MERALCO v. Sec. of Labor
A labor organization of staff and technical Security guards may now freely join a labor organization of the rank and file, or that of the supervisory
employees of MERALCO, filed a petition for union, depending on their rank.
certification election, seeking to represent regular
employees of MERALCO, including the security
guards. But Meralco questioned the legality of
allowing them to join either the rank and file or
the supervisory union, claiming that this is a
violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule II, Book V of the
Implementing Rules of RA 6715.

11. Central Negros Electric Cooperative Inc.


(CENECO) vs. DOLE and CENECO Union of Rational CURE members approved Resolution No. 35 The right to join an organization necessarily includes the equivalent right not to join the same.
Employees (CURE) whereby it was agreed that all union members
shall withdraw, retract, or recall their membership
from CENECO in order to avail of the full benefits
under the CBA. CENECO and DOLE-Bacolod were
furnished copies of the resolution. A few months
before the expiration of the CBA, CURE wrote to
CENECO proposing that negotiations be
conducted for a new CBA. CENECO denied on the
ground that EEs who are members of an electric
cooperative are not entitled to form or join a
union. CENECO then denied their subsequent
withdrawal from cooperative membership
because it would be contrary to its goals as an
electric cooperative. CURE then filed a petition for
direct recognition or for certification election
which was granted by the SOLE. SC annulled the
order for direct certification and ordered the med-
arbiter to conduct a certification election on the
ground that direct certification was already
discontinued and there is no just cause for the
denial of their withdrawal from membership.
Membership in a cooperative is on a voluntary
basis. Their resignation forms part of their right to
self- organization as an expression of their
preference for union membership over
cooperative membership.

12.International Catholic Immigration Commission


v. Calleja It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that
diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic
immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar,
it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the
principal law officer of the government . . . or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in
adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction . . . as to
embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted
doctrine that in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the
political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.

13. NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v.


Secretary When a CE was held among the RE-EE of Pavillion In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, whether
Hotel, a significant number of votes segregated probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. A certification election is the process of determining
votes. Petitioner Union and Respondent Union the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for
referred the case to the Med-Arbiter who decided purposes of collective bargaining. The significance of an employee’s right to vote in a certification
to open 17/22 segregated votes except 5 votes of election cannot thus be overemphasized. The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary
probationary employees even if initially a employees from voting cannot override the Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-
probationary EE’s vote was counted. Petitioner organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on certification
appealed to SOLE contending that the votes of elections and jurisprudence.
probationary EEs should be counted but SOLE
affirmed MA. SC ruled that votes of probationary
EEs must be counted as provided by law and that
respondent union must not be certified for it did
not achieve the majority vote.

14. Yumang v RPN9


15. Heirs of teodulo v CIR
16. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union

17. Flora v. Oximana


18. Tancinco v. Calleja
19. Manalad v. Trajano
20. Del Pilar Academy v. DPA employees union
21. Gabrial v SOLE
22. Holy Cross v. Joaquin
23. Verceles v. BLR-DOLE
24. ISAE v. Quisumbing

25. San Miguel v Laguesma


bargaining agent definition
26. Erson Ang Lee v Samahan
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

33.
34.
35.