You are on page 1of 6

77.VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION (VIEU) vs.

HON. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA; as Acting Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNI
ONS (ALU), and VASSAR INDUSTRIES, INC. G.R. No. L-46562 March 31, 1978

FACTS:

There was in existence a collective bargaining agreement between private respondents Associated Labor Unions and Vassa
r Industries, Inc.. Prior to its expiration, 111 of a total number of 150 employees of such firm disaffiliated from the former l
abor organization and formed their own union. Thereafter, they filed an application for registration of their union with the
Bureau of Labor Relations, complying with an the requirements of both the Labor Code and its implementing regulations.
ZA While such application was pending, petitioner Union filed a petition for certification as bargaining agent for the rank-
and-file employees of the company. The Med-
Arbiter denied their plea on the ground that the union was not duly registered with the Department of Labor.

The Acting Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, denied, the application for registration on the ground that there is a
registered collective bargaining agent in the company.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an application for registration should be denied just because there is already a registered collective bargain
ing agent in the company.

RULING:

No. As long as an applicant union complies with all of the legal requirements for registration, it becomes the BLR’s ministe
rial duty to so register the union. It suffices then to order that petitioner Union be registered, there being no legal obstacle
to such a step and the duty of the Bureau of Labor Relations being clear. Then there is this ruling in Philippine Labor Allia
nce Council v. Bureau of Labor Relations that calls for application that “once the fact of disaffiliation has been demonstrat
ed beyond doubt, as in this case, a certification election is the most expeditious way of determining which labor organizati
on is to be the exclusive bargaining representative.” In the meanwhile, if as contended by private respondent labor union t
he interim collective bargaining agreement which was entered during the pendency of the petition of the petitioner, has m
uch more favorable terms for the workers of private respondent Vassar Industries, then it should continue in full force and
effect until the appropriate bargaining representative is chosen and negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreemen
t thereafter concluded. This is one way of assuring that both the social justice, and the protection to labor provisions would
be effectively implemented without sanctioning an attempt to frustrate the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction in a pendin
g case.

1
78.ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC. vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and ADAMSON & ADAMSON SUP
ERVISORY UNION (FFW) G.R. No. L-35120, 31 January 1984

FACTS:

The Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) informed the petitioner about its having organized on the sam
e date that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Salesmen Association (FFW) advised the petitioner that the rank and file sales
men had formed their own union.

The CIR dismissed the petition in CIR Case No. 3267-


MC entitled “In the Matter of Representation of the Supervisory Employees of Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Petitioner ” t
hus prompting the filing of this petition for review on certiorari. Subsequently and during the pendency of the present peti
tion, the rank and file employees formed their own union, naming it Adamson and Adamson Independent Workers (FFW)
.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a union is eligible to represent the supervisory employees notwithstanding the affiliation of the said union
with the same national federation with which the unions of non-supervisors in the company are also affiliated.

RULING:

No. The Court found without merit the contentions of petitioner that if affilation will be allowed, only one union will in fac
t represent both supervisors and rank-and-
file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-
file employees with one labor organization; that there would be emerging of two bargaining units ; and that the responden
t union will loose its independence because it becomes an alter ego of the federation

Also, the CIR correct when it ruled that “The confusion seems to have stemmed from the prefix of FFW after the name of t
he local unions in the registration of both. Nonetheless, the inclusion of FWW in the registration is merely to stress that th
ey are its affiliates at the time of registrations. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own Neither c
an it be construed that their personalities are so merged with the mother federation that for one difference or another they
cannot pursue their own ways, independently of the federation. This is borne by the fact that FFW, like other federation is
a legitimate labor organization separate and distinct from its locals and affiliates and to construe the registration certificat
es of the aforecited unions, along the line of the Company’s argument. would tie up any affiliates to the shoe string of the f
ederation.”

The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Salesmen Association (FFW), have t
heir own respective constitutions and by-
laws. They are separately and independently registered of each other. Both sent their separate proposals for collective bar
agreements with their employer. There could be no employer influence on rank-and-
file organizational activities nor there could be any rank and file influence on the supervisory function of the supervisors b
ecause of the representation sought to be proscribed.

2
79.DEMOCRATIC LABOR ASSOCIATION VS. CEBU STEVEDORING COMPANY, INC. ET AL GR. No. L-
10321, 28 February 1958

FACTS:

There were two sets of employees or laborers in Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc. One group is regular and permanent, en
gaged in stevedoring work on ocean going vessels regularly calling at the port of Cebu. The other group is composed of cas
ual or temporary laborers engaged in the lighterage business of the respondent company, which consists of hauling and st
oring merchandise and other product to and from the port of Ceby and the neighboring islands and provinces. These grou
ps have different agreements with the respondent company with regards to tenure of work, wages, rates of pay, and tother
rerms and conditions of employment.

In determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit, the trial judge deemed it proper that two separate bargaining un
its be certified to the workers, one for the regular and permanent workers and the other for the casual or temporary labore
rs. The CIR, sitting en banc, overruled the trial Judge taking into account the fact that as early as 1947 a collective bargaini
ng agreement was enforced between the petitioning, union and respondent company and that such agreement covers “lab
orers on daily wage, officers and members of the crew of launches, tugboats, barges, and lighters” or, in short, all the worki
ng force employed in respondent company.

ISSUE: Whether or not there should only be one collective bargaining unit as it was according to its past collective bargai
ning agreement considering there are two sets of employees or laborers working in respondent company.

HELD: No. While it may be true that a collective bareaining agreement has for some time existed between the petitioning
union and respondent company and the same has served the purpose for which it has been concluded, it does not follow th
at the same situation should continue even if there are supervening factors that press for a different treatment or other cog
ent reasons that would justify a different course in the determination of the appropriate collections bargaining agency.

Inasmuch, as the basic test of a bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether it will best assure to all employees the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights, industrial experience indicates that the most efficacious bargaining unit is one which is
comprised of constituents enjoying a community of interest and economic or occupational unity. This community of intere
st is reflected in groups having substantial similarity of work and duties or similarity of compensation and working conditi
ons.

Another important factor is the precedent history of collective bargaining between the proposed bargaining unit and the e
mployer. When this precedent exists, it may be assumed that the court will not disturb the composition of a consolidated b
argaining unit which has an established existence and has, in its past dealings with the employer, demonstrated its service
to the collective bargaining purposes of the act. However, where the circumstances have been so altered or where the recip
rocal relationship of the employer and the bargaining unit has been so changed that the past mutual experience in collectiv
e bargaining cannot be reasonably said to establish a reliable guide to the present constituency of the bargaining unit, then
prior collective bargaining history cannot be considered a factor in the determination. In such an event, the determination
must be made entirely upon the basis of existing facts and with due consideration to all of the remaining factors.

3
80. LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION vs.
HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTR
Y OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP) and COMMERCIAL AND AGRO-INDUSTRIAL LABOR ORGANIZATION (CAILO)
G.R. No. 93117, 1 August 1995

FACTS:

National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines-TUCP (“NACUSIP-


TUCP”) filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (“DOLE”) Regional Office No. VI, Bacolod City, a petition for
direct certification or for certification election to determine the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of t
he supervisory employees of herein petitioner, Lopez Sugar Corporation (“LSC”), at its sugar central in Fabrica, Sagay, Ne
gros Occidental.

LSC opposed. Also, the Commercial and Agro-


Industrial Labor Organization (“CAILO”), a registered labor organization moved to intervene. NACUSIP-
TUCP submitted Charter Certificate of the NACUSIP-
TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter. LSC, on its part, submitted a list of its employees above the rank-and-
file status preparatory to the inclusion/exclusion proceedings.Med-
Arbiter Felizardo T. Serapio issued an Order granting the petition. He ruled that under Article 257 of the Labor Code, as a
mended, the Med-
Arbiter was left with no option but to order the conduct of a certification election immediately upon the filing of the petitio
n, holding that the subsequent disaffiliation or withdrawals of members did not adversely affect the standing of the petitio
n.

The Solicitor General agrees with public respondent in arguing that the tenor of Article 257 (supra) of the Labor Code is on
e of command. He cites paragraph 2, Section 6, Rule V, Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor C
ode, to the effect that once “a petition (is) filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the M
ed-
Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election,” which is designed, he continues, to give substance t
o the workers’ right to self- organization.

ISSUE: Whether or not a certificate of affiliation is sufficient for the purpose of certification election.

RULING:
Yes. Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-
Arbiter to an automaton which can instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of a petition for certification election. He i
s still tasked to satisfy himself that all the conditions of the law are met, and among the legal requirements is that the petiti
oning union must be a legitimate labor organization in good standing.

The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was filed by the NACUSIP-
TUCP, a national labor organization duly registered with the DOLE. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-
TUCP might be conceded; being merely, however, an agent for the local organization (the NACUSIP-
TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), the federation’s bona fide status alone would not suffice. The local chapt
er, as its principal, should also be a legitimate labor organization in good standing. The only document extant on record to
establish the legitimacy of the NACUSIP-
TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else. The instant petition, at least for n
ow, must thus be GRANTED.

4
81. PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MED-
ARBITER EDGARDO DELA CRUZ and PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN)-TUCP
G.R. No. 96425, 4 February 1992

FACTS:

The controversy in this case centers on the requirements before a local or chapter of a federation may file a petition for cer
tification election and be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioner’s employees.

Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa (KILUSAN) -


TUCP (hereinafter referred to as Kilusan) filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a petition for certi
fication election among the rank-and-
file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive Developme
nt Employees Union, was issued charter certificate. Kilusan claimed that there was no existing collective bargaining agree
ment and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining unit.

Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss contending that the local union failed to comply with Rule II Section 3, Book V o
f the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the submission of: (a) the constitution and by-
laws; (b) names, addresses and list of officers and/or members; and (c) books of accounts.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a local union need to be a Legitimate Labor Union on despite its issuance of charter certificate.

RULING:

Yes. But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a certification election in an unor
ganized establishment, it also requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organiz
ation. Article 242 enumerates the exclusive rights of a legitimate labor organization among which is the right to be certifie
d as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective
bargaining.

Meanwhile, Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor organization as “any labor organization duly registered with the DOL
E and includes any branch or local thereof.” (Emphasis supplied) Rule I, Section 1(j), Book V of the Implementing Rules li
kewise defines a legitimate labor organization as “any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any
branch, local or affiliate thereof.”

It is important to clarify the relationship between the mother union and the local union. In the case of Liberty Cotton Mills
Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., 66 SCRA 512 [1975]), the Court held that the mother union, acting for and in
behalf of its affiliate, had the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit of the association, free to serv
e the common interest of all its members subject only to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-
laws of the association. Thus, whereas in this case the petition for certification election was filed by the federation which is
merely an agent, the petition is deemed to be filed by the chapter, the principal, which must be a legitimate labor organizat
ion. The chapter cannot merely rely on the legitimate status of the mother union.

5
82.
DOLORES VILLAR vs.THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor, AMIGO MANUF
ACTURING INCORPORATED and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU G.R. No. L-50283-
84, 20 April 1983

FACTS:

The petitioners, who are the disaffiliating union members insist that their disaffiliation from PAFLU and filing a petition f
or certification election are not acts of disloyalty but an exercise of their right to self-
organization. The contention was that these acts were done within the 60-
day freedom period when questions of representation may freely be raised.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the disaffiliation from its mother union is justified considering it was done during the freedom period.

RULING:

No, it must be supported by the majority of the union members. In the first place, had petitioners merely disaffiliated from
the. Amigo Employees Union-
PAFLU, there could be no legal objections thereto for it was their right to do so. But what petitioners did by the very clear t
erms of their “Sama-Samang Kapasiyahan” was to disaffiliate the Amigo Employees Union-
PAFLU from PAFLU, an act which they could not have done with any effective consequence because they constituted the
minority in the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU.

Extant from the records is the fact that petitioners numbering ten (10), were among the ninety-
six (96) who signed the “Sama-
Samang Kapasiyahan” whereas there are two hundred thirty four (234) union members in the Amigo Employees Union-
PAFLU. Hence, petitioners constituted a small minority for which reason they could not have successfully disaffiliated the
local union from PAFLU. Since only 96 wanted disaffiliation, it can be inferred that the majority wanted the union to rema
in an affiliate of PAFLU and this is not denied or disputed by petitioners. The action of the majority must, therefore, prevai
l over that of the minority members.

You might also like