4:08 0 Oo x

> @ Labor Relations - Case Digests 11 | PDF | Collec... nh «<

scribd.com
Download 3 of7 Q Search document

Litex Employees Association vs. George Eduvala

G.R.No. L-41106 September 22, 1977

Fact:

The Federation of Free Workers filed with the BLR against petitioner labor Union to
hold a
referendum among the members of the union for the of determining whether they
desired to be
affiliated with such Federation. It was alleged that a "great majority” of the
members of the union
desired such affiliaion, but that its President was opposed. The contention of
petitioner Union acting
through its counsel was that only about 700 out of more than 2,200 employees of the
company had
manifested their desire to afiliate with the Federation and that a substantial
number of such had since
then repudiated their signatures. It also raised the point that what was sought was
a certification
election which was not proper as there was a certified collective bargaining
agreement between the
union and the company. The Compulsory Arbitrator, after a careful study of the
pleadings, reached the
conclusion that the truth of the matter could best be assertained by a referendum
election. Respondent
as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of labor Relations affirmed

Issue: Whether or not an Officer-in-Charge of the BLR can require a memorandum

election be held
among the members of a union.

Ruling:

Article 226 of the New Labor Code cannot be misread to signify that the authority
conferred on
the Secretary of labor and the officials of the Department is limited in character.
On the contrary, even a
cursory reading thereof readily yields the conclusion that in the interest of
industrial peace and for the
promotion of the salutary constitutional objectives of social justice and
protection to labor, the
competence of the governmental entrusted with supervision over disputes involving
employers and
employees as well as “inter-union and intra-union conflicts," is broad and
expensive. Thereby its
purpose becomes crystal-clear. As is quite readily discernible where it concerns
the promotion of social
and economy rights, the active participation in the implementation of the codal
objective is entrusted to
the executive department. There is no support for any allegation of jurisdictional
infirmity, considering
that the language employed is well-nigh inclusive with the stress on its "and
exclusive authority to act.”
If it were otherwise, its policy might be rendered futile. That is to run counter
to a basic postulate in the
canons of statutory interpretation.

This documentis...
& Useful ® Not useful