STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP. (SLECC) v. HON.
ISSUE:
SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 162355
DOCTRINE:
1. Voluntary recognition is only allowed when there are no
other labor organizations in the same bargaining unit.
2. Employers cannot oppose the petition for CE or appeal the
Med-Arbiter’s decision. The exception is when the
employer is requested to bargain collectively.
FACTS:
1. The Confederate Labor Union of the Philippines (CLUP)
instituted a petition for CE among the regular R&F
employees of SLECC and its Affiliates1, in behalf of its
chartered local (CLUP-SLECC or the Union).
2. Med-Arbiter ordered the dismissal of the petition due to
inappropriateness of the bargaining unit (explanation in
ruling laterz).
3. The Union then reorganized and re-registered as CLUP-
SLECC Worker’s Association (CLUP-SLECCWA or Union
also), limiting their membership to R&F of SLECC.
4. This Union filed a petition before DOLE alleging that SLECC
employs 115 employees and that more than 20% of
employees belonging to the R&F category are members of
Union. It claimed that no CE has been held among them
within the last 12 mos. prior to filing this petition. Lastly,
they claimed that while there is another union registered
with DOLE-Reg Office covering same employees namely
SMSLEC, it has not been recognized as the exclusive
bargaining agent of SLECC employees.
5. Petitioner filed MTD alleging that it has voluntarily
recognized SMSLEC as exclusive bargaining agent of its
R&F employees, and that collective bargaining
negotiations already commenced between them.
a. Alleged also that petition of Union should be
denied because it violates par. (c) and (d), Sec. 11,
Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
6. A CBA between SMSLEC and SLECC was eventually ratified.
7. Union filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s MTC saying that
the voluntary recognition of SMSLEC, their negotiation,
and execution of CBA is invalid. The recognition failed to
meet one of the major requirements which is “the non-
existence of another labor organization in the same
bargaining unit”.
8. MED-ARBITER: DISMISSED Union’s petition for direct
certification on the ground of contract bar rule. The
recognition of SMSLEC is valid.
9. SECRETARY: REVERED, ruling in favour of Union. Sec held
that subsequent negotiations and registration of a CBA
executed by SLECC with SMSLEC could not bar Union’s
petition because Union was already registered at the time
SMLSEC was recognized by SLECC.
10. CA: AFFIRMED Sec decision
1The said affiliate companies included in the petition were SLE Commercial,
SLE Dept store, SLE Cinema, Robsan East Trading, Bowling Center, Planet
Toys, Home Gallery and Essentials.
1. Whether the Union’s certification should be cancelled
for representing wrong bargaining unit – NO.
2. Whether the recognition of SMSLEC by SLECC was
valid
HELD:
No. CA was correct in affirming Sec decision.
1. Issue of representing an inappropriate bargaining unit:
The Court said that that SLECC cannot decide by itself whether
the Union represented the appropriate bargaining unit, and
thus, should have its certificate cancelled.
*** The Union in the case at bar initially had a problem
because they are a legitimate labor organization but
represented a non-appropriate bargaining unit (because their
members come from different companies w/c are affiliates of
SLECC). However, the Union subsequently re-registered as
CLUP-SLECCWA, limiting its members to R&F of SLECC. SLECC
cannot ignore that the Union was a legitimate labor
organization at the time of its recognition of SMSLEC.
Representing the wrong bargaining unit is not a ground for
cancellation unless it was attended by misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud.
2. Issue of recognition by SLECC of SMSLEC
The Court explained that an employer may voluntarily
recognize the representation status of a union in unorganized
establishments. HOWEVER, in this case, SLECC was not an
unorganized establishment when it voluntarily recognized
SMSLEC as its exclusive bargaining representative. This
recognition happened on July, 2001, while the Union’s petition
for CE was filed on February, 2001 and remained pending as of
July 2001. Thus, SLECC’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC, the
subsequent negotiations and resulting registration of CBA are
VOID and cannot bar the Union’s present petition for CE.
Other issue: Direct filing of opposition by employer
Court also took notice that it was SLECC that directly filed a
motion to oppose petition for CE. In such petitions, the
employer is a mere by-stander and cannot oppose the petition
or appeal the Med-Arbiter decision. The exception to this is
when the employer is requested to bargain collectively. This
exception is not present in this case.