LABOR LAW REVIEWER

By Crissa Jean Morales, JD

MODULE 3
BARGAINING UNIT

What is a bargaining unit?

A “bargaining unit” refers to a group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit,
comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific occupational
or geographical grouping within such employer unit. It may also refer to the group or cluster of jobs or positions
within the employer’s establishment that supports the labor organization which is applying for registration.

TEST TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUENCY OF AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT

What are the four tests to determine appropriate bargaining unit?
Based on jurisprudence, there are certain tests which may be used in determining the appropriate collective
bargaining unit, to wit:
(1) Community or mutuality of interest doctrine;
(2) Globe doctrine or will of the members;
(3) Collective bargaining history doctrine; and
(4) Employment status doctrine.

1. COMMUNITY OR MUTUALITY OF INTEREST DOCTRINE.

Under this doctrine, the employees sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent must have
community or mutuality of interest in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work
they perform. It is characterized by similarity of employment status, same duties and responsibilities and
substantially similar compensation and working conditions.

Relevant cases:
 San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma, September 21, 1994, the test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of
interests is present since there is similarity of employment status of the regular sales personnel in various
Magnolia sales offices. They have the same duties and responsibilities and substantially similar
compensation and working conditions. What greatly militates against this position is the meager number
of sales personnel in each of the Magnolia sales office in the Northern Luzon. Even if the bargaining unit
sought to be represented by the union consists only of 55 employees, surely, it would not be for the best
interest of these employees if they would further be fractionalized. The adage "there is strength in
number" is the very rationale underlying the formation of a labor union.

 San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, Aug. 1, 2011, the Court ruled there
should be only one bargaining unit for the employees involved in dressed chicken processing and those
engaged in live chicken operations. Certain factors, such as specific line of work, working conditions,
location of work, mode of compensation, and other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their
commonality of interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the specific tasks of
each division are actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the
formation of a single bargaining unit.

 Erson Ang Lee Doing Business as Super Lamination v. SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU, November 21, 2016 - [The
court] has ruled that geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual
interests of the employees are not sacrificed. In the present case, there was communal interest among
the rank-and-file employees of the three companies based on the finding that they were constantly
rotated to all three companies, and that they performed the same or similar duties whenever rotated.
Therefore, aside from geographical location, their employment status and working conditions were so
substantially similar as to justify a conclusion that they shared a community of interest.
Also, this Court has time and again disregarded separate juridical personalities under the
doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. It has done so in cases where a separate legal entity is used to
 defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, among other grounds. In any of
these situations, the law will regard it as an association of persons or, in case of two corporations, merge
them into one. A settled formulation of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is that when two
business enterprises are owned, conducted, and controlled by the same parties, both law and equity will,
when necessary to protect the rights of third parties, disregard the legal fiction that these two entities are
distinct and treat them as identical or as one and the same. This formulation has been applied by this
Court to cases in which the laborer has been put in a disadvantageous position as a result of the separate
juridical personalities of the employers involved. Pursuant to veil-piercing, we have held two corporations
jointly and severally liable for an employee's back wages. Here, a certification election was ordered to be
held for all the rank-and-file employees of Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat. The
three companies were supposedly distinct entities based on the fact that Super Lamination is a sole
proprietorship while Express Lamination and Express Coat were separately registered with the SEC.[33]
The directive was therefore, in effect, a piercing of the separate juridical personalities of the corporations
involved. We find the piercing to be proper and in accordance with the law.

 St. James School of Quezon City v. Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City. -
Respondent union sought to represent the rank-and-file employees (consisting of the motor pool,
construction and transportation employees) of petitioner-school’s Tandang Sora campus. Petitioner-
school opposed it by contending that the bargaining unit should not only be composed of said employees
but must include administrative, teaching and office personnel in its five (5) campuses. The Supreme
Court disagreed with said contention. The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the
Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the certification election, hence, it was ruled
that the 149 qualified voters should be used to determine the existence of a quorum during the election.
Since a majority or 84 out of the 149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed during the
certification election. The computation of the quorum should be based on the rank-and-file motor pool,
construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus and not on all the employees in
petitioner’s five (5) campuses. Moreover, the administrative, teaching and office personnel are not
members of the union. They do not belong to the bargaining unit that the union seeks to represent.