HERCULES INDUSTRIES v.

SOLE & USEC, MED-ARBITER and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR [NFL] 1992 / Grino-Aquino FACTS On July 1987, NFL filed a petition for certification election, alleging that the CBA would expire in August 1987, and that it [NFL] enjoys the support of more than 20% of Hercules rank and file employees. By the parties’ agreement, the Med-Arbiter issued an order for the conduct of a certification election —NFL, Hercules Employees Labor Union [HELU], No Union. In the pre-election conference, the parties were not able to agree on the list of qualified voters, because the company charged that the list included 98 scabs, 16 capatazes, 8 security guards, and 9 managerial employees. The Med-Arbiter ordered the conduct of a certification election, but excepted the following: managerial employees, security force department, and the striker employees who executed quitclaims and accepted separation pay. NFL appealed this order to the BLR; however, pending its resolution, a certification election was conducted. Eventually, the BLR director declared the election null and void, and ordered a new election, saying that the July 1987 payroll, excluding the 98 scab replacement, will be the basis for the voters list. NFL won in the certification election, garnering 89 out of 91 votes [2 votes were spoiled / invalid], and so the Med-Arbiter declared and certified NFL as the SEBA of the rank-and-files. Hercules’ [the company] MfR was denied by the DOLE Undersecretary on the following grounds:  Sections 3 and 4, Rule 6, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code on protests had not been followed.  The records disclose that no protest was made before the election, nor formalized within 5 days after the election.  DOLE has not found any legal obstacle to NFL’s proclamation as the SEBA of the rank -and-files. ISSUES & HOLDING WON Hercules Industries, as employer, may question the validity of the certification election. NO WON the Med-Arbiter erred in declaring NFL as the SEBA. NO RATIO The employer is not a party to the certification election, which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers. In the choice of their collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation deserves no encouragement. The only instance when the employer may be involved in the process is when it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on its workers’ request to bargain collectively. After the order for a certification election issues, the employer’s involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral bystander. In this case, while the employees themselves never requested the company to bargain collectively, still, they did not object to the results of the certification election. Hence, Hercules Industries’ appeal to the BLR and its filing of the petition for certiorari with the SC must be rejected. In any event, Hercules Industries’ challenge against the validity of the certification election is devoid of merit. Hercules’ allegations No notice of certification election was issued, so no copies of said notice were given to it; also, no copies were posted in conspicuous places within the company’s premises. The July 1987 payroll was not used as the basis of the voters’ list. Only 15 out of 98 voters signed their names showing that they actually voted. Why there is no truth to what it says The pre-election conference minutes showed that Hercules was notified of the conference so it was able to attend the same. During the same conference, the MedArbiter set the certification election date. The minutes also show that the list of the voters’ names were copied from the 1987 payroll, as per the BLR director’s order. The minutes certified that the election was conducted in the most just, honest, and free manner without untoward happening.

Neither the records of the case nor the minutes of the certification election show that Hercules protested the conduct of the certification election. As provided in Section 3 of Rule VI (Elections) of Book V of the Omnibus Rules: “ x x x Protests not so raised are deemed waived.” Petition for certiorari DISMISSED.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful